Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its District ... vs C.Rajendran on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10595 OF 2017
@ Special Leave Petition(C) No. 299/2016
STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT
COLLECTOR TUTICORIN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
C.RAJENDRAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard the learned senior counsel.
The appeal has been preferred by State of Tamil Nadu, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.1148 of 2006 decided on 27.7.2012 by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras. The plaintiff-respondents instituted the suit for declaration of title consequential relief of permanent mandatory injunction decree directing the defendants to rectify the erroneous order and also to direct to rectify the entry in the suit property, set aside the order dated 25.6.2003 passed in respect of 2nd schedule property and pass order directing the defendants to correct the entry in revenue record, in which Signature Not Verified the Digitally signed by suit property is mentioned as Kuntru (small hill) SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2017.08.23 16:59:22 IST Reason: Porambokku as punja land and issue patta in favour of plaintiffs.
2Perusal of the plaint reveals that plaintiffs came to the Court with the averments that they are the owners of the property. It was always a ryotland. The land originally belonged to one Kondusamy Naickar who was the holder of Patta. He sold the plaint first schedule property in favour of one Mr. R.M.A.S. Palani Chettiar on 26.3.1939 by means of registered sale deed. Thereafter, Palani Chettiar enjoyed the land as absolute owner and paid the land revenue. The first plaintiff is the wife of G. Chelliaiah Naicker. He purchased the land schedule property from Mr.R.M.A.S. Palani Chettiar on 18.6.1950.
The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 came into force, survey and settlement proceedings were initiated. The plaint schedule first property was assigned different survey nos. 29 and 30 by the settlement department. Plaintiff submitted that while assigning such different new nos. gross negligence with patent errors and wrong classification was made. Mr. G. Chellaiah Naocker was accordingly paid for new survey No. 29 wet land for an extent of 9 acres and 27 cents for a portion of land of the plaint first schedule land under patta no. 71 and an extent of 13 acres and 27 cents in the plaint first schedule land and in New survey no. 30 was classified as “Government Assessed Waste Land Hill Poramboke”. The balance extent of 3 acres 70 cents was not accounted for by the government. The new survey no. 30 was shown as Adangal No 3 (Paimash) 7 to 11 with the said classification in village revenue papers. The first plaintiff’s husband Mr. G Chellaiah Naicker objected to the blatant errors before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti in S.11/19/KLP/64. However the objection was rejected. He preferred a revision before the Settlement Officer Madurai in R.P. 11/7/KLP/65 which was dismissed in 1965. Further revision was preferred before Director Survey and Settlement, Madras. It was also dismissed on 28.1.1967.
It was however averred in the plaint that government had allotted certain land in favour of Police Department. Vide order dated 25.06.2003 and decision already taken under Tamil Nadu Act 26/1948 were confirmed in respect of Survey Nos. 29-30. The plaintiff contended that the title to the Second Schedule property could only be decided by Civil Court and not any other forums. The plaintiff has also pleaded that wrong entries were made and classification was illegally made as Government Assessed Wasteland Hill Poramboke”. With respect to the wrong entries and accrual of cause of action the following pleadings in para 13 of the plaint were made:
“13. The cause of action for the suit arose on and from 26.3.1939 when Kondusami Naicker sold the plaint first schedule property to Palani Chettiar, on and from 18.6.1950, when he said Palani Chettiar sold that property to Chelliah Naicker (Husband of Plaintiff No.1), on and from the dates when wrong classification was made by the Survey and Settlement Department under Tamil Nadu Act 26/1948 in respect of the plaint second 4 schedule property, on and from 22.6.1964 when the petition by Chelliah Naicker before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti was dismissed by the Director of Survey and Settlements, Madras, on and from pattas were wrongly given to the said Chelliah Naicker for the plaint first schedule property, on and from 13.3.2003 when the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti passed an order on and from 25.6.2003 when the District Collector, Tuticorin passed an Order, and at Inam Maniyachi Village, where the plaint first schedule property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.” In the written statement filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, it was contended that the suits filed by the plaintiffs were not maintainable. Plaintiffs were not the owners nor in possession of the land. Title of the purchaser had also been denied. Facts regarding illegal division of the land were also denied. The suit schedule property was managed under Zamindri scheme in Inam Maniyatchi Village.
Thereafter, the zamindari system was abolished in order to implement the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 that the Estate land which was under the jamindari control were taken under the direct control of Government vide G.O. No. 2302 dated 1.9.1951 from 1.10.1951 onwards. In order to implement Ryotwari system in Inam Maniyatchi village the land survey as well as UDR system was completed in the Fasli year 1370, corresponding to the year 1962. The settlement was made rightly. The settlement “A” Register Patta No.71 was issued 5 in favour of Chellaiah Naicker having an extent of 09.73 acre in Ryotwari Punja Survey No. 29. The old Bimas No. in respect of Survey No. 29 are No. 2.7 to 11/2 and the extent is 8.49 acre and patta No. 86 was also issued in the name of Kondusamy Naicker in the record made prior to UDR Scheme. Patta No. 86 was issued before the UDR scheme and Ryotwari patta was issued on the basis of respective enjoyment of the lands.
As per the settlement “A” register, an extent of 13.27 acres in Survey No. 30 was recorded as unassessed barren hill porambokku land. An extent of 16.99 acres in respect of old Bimas Nos. 7 to 11 pertaining to Survey No.3 was registered as hills Porambokku.
The proceedings which were undertaken in 1964 attained finality and no appeal was filed in respect of survey no. 30 and these facts have been admitted by the plaintiffs in para 7 of the plaint. Plaintiffs filed the suit after 30 years seeking relief in respect of Survey No. 30 which was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also contended that the land remained under direct control of Government and Survey no. 254 situated in Alampatti village is classified as Punitive Police Line and Survey No. 254 alone situated south of Alampatti and inside of Inam Maniyathi like an island. Thus, decision was taken to handover survey no. 254 to the Police Department.
6The proceedings under the Act 26/1948 were confirmed. Plaintiff had questioned the order dated 25.6.2003 in the writ petition which was pending. Such filing of the suit for the same relief was impermissible and the suit could not be said to be maintainable.
The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2004 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.67 of 2004 before the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2005. The same was questioned by the State of Tamil Nadu in second appeal No.1148 of 2006 before the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras. The High has held that entries made were wrong and the issue of limitation could not be permitted to be raised by the revenue officials. The second appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the State has come up in the appeal.
It was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that suit was hopelessly barred by time. As per the averments made in the plaint, suit could not have been decreed at all. It was rightly dismissed by the Trial court. However, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that question of title could only be decided by the civil court merely wrong revenue entry in revenue could not be said to decide the title though the cause of action arose when the entries were made in 1960, the 7 suit based on title could not be said to be barred by limitation.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the plaint and the impugned judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the approach of the High Court while holding that it was not open to the revenue officer to raise the plea of limitation cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The High Court has committed blatant error of law while holding that the issue of limitation cannot be permitted to be raised by the revenue officials. The plaint itself describes the cause of action in afore extracted para
13. The plaintiffs had questioned the aforesaid order of settlement of 1964 in the revenue proceedings. However, the revision came to be dismissed. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated in 1948 regarding settlement had attained finality. Without questioning the aforesaid orders, it was not open to the plaintiff to file a suit and to seek a declaration of title. The suit filed after 30 years was barred by limitation and could not have been entertained at all. The order passed in 2003 was with respect to piece of the land which was an isolated piece of land, which would not confer any fresh cause of action to the plaintiffs to file suit after period of limitation has lapsed. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the suit was clearly barred by 8 limitation.
Thus, the first appellate court and the High Court have committed error of law in holding otherwise and decreeing the suit. Hence, we set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellant court and judgment passed in second appeal by the High Court.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Parties to bear the cost incurred.
....................J (ARUN MISHRA) ....................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 16, 2017
9
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).299/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-07-2012 in SAMD No. 1148/2006 passed by the High Court Of Madras at Madurai) STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR TUTICORIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS C.RAJENDRAN & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 16-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Maitreeyee Mishra, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, Adv.
Mr. B. Balaji, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)