Madras High Court
K.Subbiah vs The Commissioner For Scheduled Case And on 5 December, 2018
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.10365 of 2014
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
K.Subbiah ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner for Scheduled Case and
Scheduled Tribes
Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Case and
Scheduled Tribes
Sasthri Bhavan
II- Floor, Block No.5
Chennai- 600 006.
2. The District Collector
Theni District
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer
Thamarikulam, Periyakulam
Theni District
4. The Joint Sub Registrar No.II
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.II
Periyakulam, Theni District ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein
to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2014
requesting statutory enquiry for fake and fraudulent entries in the
revenue records and registration records in respect of petitioner's
property measuring 3.35 acres comprised in S.No.152/1, 152/2 and 153
situated at T.Vadipatti Village, Periyakulam taluk, Theni District within a
http://www.judis.nic.in
reasonable time.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mr.R.Murugan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 09.06.2014 relating to the alleged fake and fraudulent entries in the revenue records and registration records in respect of his property measuring 3.35 acres comprised in S.No.152/1, 152/2 and 153 situated at T.Vadipatti Village, Periyakulam taluk, Theni District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that the land in question was assigned to one Kuppammal from whom the petitioner has purchased the property. He would submit that he had been in continuous possession of the land vide agreement dated 03.05.1984 and 12.01.1995. However, he came to know that as per the revenue records the names have been altered in the name of Backiyalakshmi, Muthukrishnan and Saravanakumar. He would further submit that the land was originally assigned to one Kuppammal as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The decision of the Honourable Bench of this Court in VGP Prem Nagar -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu 2010(3) CTC 845: LNIND 2008 MAD 3702 , wherein it is held that :
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 “The history of the assignment of the land to depresses classes is important. In 1891, the then Chengalpattu District Collector J.H.A Tremen Heere, a Britisher, submitted a port to the British Government on seeing the plight of the depressed classed and their socio- economic, political and cultural condition. He mentioned in the report that even after the abolition of slavery in 1844, the practice continued in the name of Padiyaal(bonded labourer). At that point of time, lands were in the total control of persons who were considered to be in the case hierarchy on a higher level and the bonded agricultural labourers and landless workers mainly belonged to the depressed classes. He noted in his report,” The small or marginal land holdings, housing, literacy, free labour without force bondage , self respect and dignity are the factors that could lead to transformation in (their lives)”. Based on this, the British Parliament passed the Depressed Class Land Act in the year 1892 and 12,00,000/- acres of land were distributed to them in Tamil Nadu. The lands were called Panchami lands and were given away under certain conditions, viz, that they cannot sell the lands or lease them out or give as gifts or pledge them for the first ten years and after the expiry of the ten year period , the lands could be transferred , but only to persons belonging to the depressed classes and any breach of these conditions will entail cancellation of the assignment. It would appear that these conditions were imposed bearing in mind that it would be easy to exploit persons belonging to the depressed classes who had long been http://www.judis.nic.in kept in a subjugated condition”.4
Genesis of assignment of lands has been traced out the persons belonging to the deprived class.
3. He would also submit that this Court in V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill, rep. by its Partners Rajendra Kumar, Sambuvarayar District - vs- Special Commissioner and Commissioner of land Administration, Exhilagam, Madras in W.P.Nos.798 and 799 of 1992 in para 84 is observed as under:
“84. Any person not being a member of the scheduled caste community or tribe, and who purchases the land only acquires a defeasible legal right and he cannot make any grievance of violation of Article 19(1) (F) of the Constitution of India. Such transferee whether the assigned land has been purchased with or without the knowledge of the conditions, does not acquire any title to the property.. His right to hold and continue possession and enjoyment is not indefeasible.
It also does not confer any right to squat over a property which is liable for resumption to the Government. The Supreme Court has also made it clear that such a kind of defeasible right of the transferee in the granted lands cannot be considered to be property as contemplated in Article 31 and 31(A) of the Constitution. The Apex Court has made it clear stated that nature of the right of the transferee in the granted land, on transfer of such lands, in breach of the conditions of prohibition relating to such transfer, the object of such grant in the terms thereof also, the law governing such grants and he objects of the scheme of the Act enacted for the benefit of the weaker sections http://www.judis.nic.in of the society,would clearly go to show that there is no 5 case of deprivation of such a right and property to attract the provisions of the Constitution. Such transaction has been held to be void in the eye of law. The transferee has no right and interest over the property”.
4. He would further refer to para 4 of the Honourable Division Bench of this High Court in VGP Prem Nagar -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu 2010(3) CTC 845: LNIND 2008 MAD 3702.
5. Considering the fact that the land stood in the name of said Kuppammal in the patta, prima facie it appears that there are some irregularities made in the revenue records by changing the assignment to Backiyalakshmi, Muthukrishnan and Saravanan. Consequently the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 09.06.2014 of the petitioner questioning the possession and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and Backiyalakshmi, Muthukrishnan and Saravanan or any other persons who may be interested in the subject land. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.12.2018 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No aav http://www.judis.nic.in 6 C.SARAVANAN, J.
aav To:
1. The Commissioner for Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes Sasthri Bhavan II- Floor, Block No.5 Chennai- 600 006.
2. The District Collector Theni District
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Thamarikulam, Periyakulam Theni District
4. The Joint Sub Registrar No.II Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.II Periyakulam, Theni District W.P.(MD) No.10365 of 2014 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 http://www.judis.nic.in