Madras High Court
K.Seethalaxmi vs The Commissioner on 5 October, 2012
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05/10/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.No.14233 of 2009
W.P.No. 14234 of 2009
W.P.No. 14235 of 2009
W.P.No. 14236 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009 in the above Writ Petitions
W.P.(MD) No.14233 of 2009
1.K.Seethalaxmi
2.S.Anburaj .. Petitioners
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
Ottapidaram,
Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.14234 of 2009
1.K.Mariammal
2.D.Venugopal .. Petitioners
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
Ottapidaram,
Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.14235 of 2009
1.Ayyangkannu
2.P.Thavasilingam .. Petitioners
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
Ottapidaram,
Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.14236 of 2009
1.A.Periyasamy
2.S.Makesh .. Petitioners
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
Ottapidaram,
Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
All the Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in C.1.Na.Ka.No.11451/2009
dated 10.12.2009 and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents
from assigning the land in S.Nos.346/6, 347/5, 347/2, 347/4 and 347/3 at
Duraisamipuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District in favour of
third parties.
!For petitioners in all the
above Writ Petitions ... Mr.D.Nallathambi
^For respondents in all the
above Writ Petitions ... Mr.T.S.Mohd.Mohideen
Addl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
In all the Writ Petitions, the first petitioner is the beneficiary, who had been issued with an order of assignment, with a condition, not to alienate the land, within a period of 20 years from the date of assignment and the second petitioner is the purchaser of the land from the first petitioner. The first petitioner has alienated the land assigned to him/her, contrary to Rule 9(1)(i) and (iii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.1713 dated 12.11.987 within the abovesaid period. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Tirunelveli, the second respondent has issued individual orders cancelling the assignment, by order dated 10.12.2009 in C1/11451/2009 and in the said order, he has also stated that steps would be taken to recover the lands and make allotment of the lands, to suitable persons.
2. Pleadings and submissions advanced in the Writ Petitions are common and hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.
3. Common submission of the writ petitioners is that the land in Survey Numbers 346/6, 347/5, measuring an extent of 1.64 acres and 80 cents in Duraisamipuram Village Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District was declared as surplus land, under the the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land ) Rules, 1965. The petitioners have applied for assignment of lands. Thereafter, lands have been assigned by the Assistant Commissioner Reforms Department. Mutation of records was done. According to them, they have become the absolute owners.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have sold the lands to the second petitioners, in each of the writ petitions, by way of registered sale deeds dated 6.3.2008, through their power agent, Mr. P.Perumal. The second petitioner in each of the Writ Petition is the purchaser from the beneficiaries. They are in enjoyment and possession of the land and patta has also been changed in their names. While so, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) vide order, dated 10.12.2009, C1/11451/2009 has cancelled the assignments.
5. On the above pleadings, Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned for the petitioners, submitted that cancellation of assignment has been done, without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and that therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Tirunelveli, the second respondent herein, by misconstruing Rule 6 (3) read with Rule 9 (iii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965, has cancelled the assignment. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the assignees have paid the value of the land in lumpsum, the land would completely vest upon them, thereby, enabling them, to alienate the land. For the above said reasons, he has prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
6. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Chennai, in his counter affidavit, submitted as follows:-
"An extent of 23.18 acres of land was declared as surplus in the following S.Nos. Of Suraisamipuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District from the agricultural holdings of Francies of Pothi Reddiar and the same was in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.9.1998 S.No. Extent A.C. 190 6.50 192/2 2.24 347/2 12.80 346/6 1.64 Total 23.18 Out of the above, an extent, of 14.44 acres of lands covered in S.No.347/2 and 346/6 of Duraisamipuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District was assigned under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 to the following five persons by the assigning authority viz., the then Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli vide proceedings in C3/MR IV/446A/OPM, dated 5.4.1999:-
Sl Name of the Survey Sub-Division Extent Land Value Land value No assignee No No.as shown A.C. determined remitted on in Field Map in'F' Deed 24.4.1999 24.4.99 Rs. Rs.
1 Tmt.Seetha- 346/6 346/6 1.64 330 330 lakshmi 347/2 347/5 0.80 2.44 2 Tmt.Mariammal 347/2(p)347/2 3.00 410 410 3 Thiru.Periyasami347/2(p) 347/3 3.00 410 410 4 Thiru. Iyyangannu347/2(p)347/4 3.00 410 410 5 Thiru Muniyandi 347/2(p)347/6 3.00 410 410 Total 14.44
The above assignments were made with a specific condition that the lands assigned shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of the period specified in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (iii) of rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules 1965. Clause (iii)(a) states that the land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid in full or after the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of assignment, whichever is later.
However, the above said assignees have sold the assigned lands within 9 years from the date of assignment, in contravention of the above said rule. Hence, a notice dated 10.10.1999 was sent by RPAD to the assignees directing them to appear for an enquiry on 20.10.2009, failing which they were informed that the assignments made in their favour would be cancelled. But the notices sent by RPAD were returned to the assigning authority undelivered. However, the assignees, on coming to know of the issuance of notice, sent their representation dated 25.11.1999, in which they have admitted that they have sold the lands on 6.3.1998, to third parties. Since the assignees themselves have admitted contravention of the condition of assignment, incorporated in the rule, in exercise of the powers under Section 9(1)(i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, the orders of assignments made in C3/MR IV/446 A/OPM, dated 5.4.1999, have been cancelled vide proceedings in C1/11451/2009, dated 10.12.2009. The assignees have accepted the conditions of assignment and that they are bound to abide by the conditions, imposed in rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 and for violation of any condition, the assignment is liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that the rules specifically state that the land would vest absolutely in the assignee, only after the value of the land remitted in full or after the expiry of twenty years from the date of assignment whichever is later. Hence, there cannot be any alienation, within the period of 20 years. It is also submitted that M/s. Coastal Energy Pvt.Ltd., Melmaruvathur Village, Ottapidaram Taluk has reported to the Assistant Commissioner (L.Ref), Tirunelveli in their letter No.Energren/GOTN/126-09 dated 8.10.2009 that the assignees have sold the lands and patta has been issued by the Tahsildar, Ottapidaram, as detailed below:
Sl Tahsildar S.No Extent Doct.No. Assignee's Purchaser Fresh No Order No. Acres and Date Name Name Patta No. 1 3102/2008 346/6 1.64 2134/08 Seethalakshmi Anburaj 877 347/5 0.80 20.5.08 2.44 2 1783/2008 347/2 3.00 888/2008 Mariyammal Venugopal 829 6.3.08 3 1784/2008 347/3 3.00 889/2008 Periyasamy Mahesh 830 6.3.08 4 3368/2008 347/4 3.00 890/2008 Ayyankannu Thavasilingam 886 6.3.08 347/6 3.00 1435/09 Muniyandi Pradeed Jayanth It is also submitted that the present writ petitions have been filed without exhausting the remedies available, before the forums provided under Rules 10,11 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, as amended. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
7. Before adverting to the facts of this case, a cursory look at the few provisions is relevant, for the purpose of the disposal of this case. Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 94 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the assigning authority shall invite applications for assignment of surplus land. The eligibility for assignment of surplus land and the maximum extent of land to be assigned is given under Rule 5. Rule 6 deals with liability of the assignee to pay the value, of the assigned land and the value for the building and trees thereon, if any. Rule 6 is extracted:-
"Liability of the assignee to pay value for the surplus land assigned and value for the building and trees thereon, if any:
6.(1) The assignee shall be liable to pay value for the surplus land assigned. The value shall be twelve times the net annual income from the lands or annual value of the land, as determined under Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule III to the Act.
(1-A) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the value for the surplus land assigned to landless agricultural labourers shall be twelve times the annual value of the land as determined under Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule III to the Act.
(2) The assignee shall also be liable to pay such value for the buildings and trees, if any one the surplus land assigned, as may be fixed. (3) The value of the surplus land and for the buildings and trees thereon if any shall at the option of the assignee be payable in a lump sum or in equal annual instalments not exceeding twenty as may be specified by the Assigning authority with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the outstanding instalment.
Provided that the assignee shall be entitled to pay at any time say sum in excess of the instalments and such excess shall be adjusted towards the subsequent instalment or instalments.
(4) If the assignee had been in possession of the land prior to the assignment, either on account of having been a tenant under the erstwhile land owner or having been put in possession as lessee by the Government only if the lessee agrees to pay the land value from that date. The amounts collected by way of rent under rule 23 or 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962 with reference to section 18-F for the period between the date of vesting of the land with the Government and the date of actual assignment shall be adjusted against such land value instalments of principal and interest as determined:
Provided that this provision will be applicable only on initial payment of such amount as may be specified by the assigning authority and on execution of an undertaking by the assignee for payment of the overdue instalments on or before the date or dates specified by the assigning authority."
8. Conditions of assignment is dealt under Rule 9 of the above said rules.
Rule 9 is extracted :-
9(1) The assignment of land shall be subject to the following conditions namely:-
(i) The Land assigned shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of period specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) below:
Provided that the lands may be hypothecated to Government under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (Central Act XIX of 1883) or the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884 (Central Act XII of 1884) or to a co-operative Institution or a scheduled bank authorised by the Government for affording credit to the agriculturists under the schemes of institutional financing of agricultural credit as security for loans obtained for improvements to the lands:
Provided further that at any later date the lands assigned to a member of the Scheduled caste or Schedule Tribe shall not be sold to any person other than a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be.
(ii) If the land has been assigned subject to the payment of value of the land and buildings and trees thereon in instalments.
(a) the first instalment shall be payable before the execution of the deed of assignment.
(b) the second and subsequent instalments of land value shall be payable on the 10th February of every succeeding year.
(c) in the event of default in the payment of an instalment, the amount of the instalment shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
(d) in the event of default of the payment of two consecutive instalments, the amount already paid shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government and the land shall be liable to be resumed, and
(e) if, in any year due to adverse seasonal conditions the land revenue in respect of the land is remitted or suspended, the recovery of the instalment payable that year and of the instalment payable in subsequent years shall be postponed by one year.
(iii)(a) The land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid in full or after the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of assignment, whichever is later.
(b) If at any time before the expiry of the period specified in sub-clause
(a) above the land assigned is required for any public purpose, the assignment shall be modified or cancelled and the land shall be resumed by the Government.
In such cases, the annual value as fixed under Schedule III of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of the 1961, for use of the land from the date of assignment to the date of resumption by Government and the loans and advances, if any, granted for the improvement of the land on the security of the land will be recoverable from the assignee. Subject to adjustment of such dues the assignee shall be entitled to refund of the instalments of land value paid by him and reimbursement of the cost of any permanent improvement effected or any structure such as wells, buildings, etc., erected on the land at his own expense for agricultural purposes or for his own residence.
(iv) The assignee shall engage himself in the direct cultivation of the land assigned.
Provided that this condition shall not be applicable to persons referred to in rule 5 (1) (v) and persons who are physically and mentally disabled, women including widows, and old persons who have no departments or family members to do cultivation on their behalf.
(v) The assignee shall pay, on the due dates, the land revenue assessment, cesses and local taxes in force from time to time, in respect of the land assigned, with effect from the year in which he assignments is sanctioned.
(vi) All sums due to the assignor by virtue of the assignment shall be recoverable from the assignee and his properties, movable and immovable, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as if such sums were arrears of land revenue or in such other manner as the assignor may deem fit.
(vi-a) The assignee shall pay the difference of the Land value and interest thereon if the amount payable to the land-owner in respect of the land is revised by or on the orders of the Land Tribunal, High Court, Land Commissioner or other authority competent to make such revision.
(vii) The assignee shall abide by such other conditions as are applicable to the assignment of Government waste lands and as may be specified in the order of assignment.
(2) Where any violation of the conditions of assignment as prescribed in sub-rule (1) or in the deed of assignment in Form F is noticed the assignment authority shall cancel the assignment:
Provided that no such cancellation shall be ordered without giving the assignee an opportunity to make his representation.
9. As per Section 94 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 read with Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 agreements have been executed by the beneficiaries, with the following conditions :
APPENDIX (CONDITIONS)
1.The assignment shall be liable to be modified or cancelled if it was made under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation or fraud or that there was an irregularity in the procedure. The assignment shall also be modified or cancelled if it is shown that the extent assigned to the assignee is in excess of the limits prescribed in the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act 58 of 1961) or the Madras Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1955:
Provided that no assignment shall be modified or cancelled if five years have elapsed after it was made.
2. In the event of modification or cancellation of the assignment as aforesaid the land assigned shall be resumed from the assignee in part or in full, as the case may be and on such resumption the assignee shall not be entitled or any compensation for any improvement effected by him on the land but the value of the land buildings and trees thereon paid by him may at the discretion of the assignor, be refunded to him in part or fin full. The assignee shall also be liable for the damages, if any, caused by him to the land and compensation for the damages shall be recovered from the assignee by deduction from the value of the land, buildings and trees thereon paid by him and if, compensation for the damages exceeds the value of the land, buildings and trees thereon paid by him such excess shall be recovered from him.
3. All sums found due to the assignor under or by virtue of these presents shall be recovered from the assignee and his properties, movable and immovable under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 as if such sums were arrears of land revenue, or in any other manner as the assignor may deem fit.
4. The annual assessment on the land shall be liable to periodical revision at resettlements.
5. The Government reserve the right to levy ground rent in lieu of assessment, if the land or a portion thereof is used for a non-agricultural purpose and such ground rent shall be liable to revision, from time to time, in accordance with the rules in force.
6. The land assigned shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of assignment or before the payment of the value of the land and buildings and trees thereon in full whichever is later.
7. Where the value of the land and buildings and trees thereon is payable in instalments:-
(a) the first instalment shall be payable before the execution of the deed of assignment;
(b) each subsequent instalment shall be payable before the 31st March of every year;
(c) in the event of default in the payment of an instalment, the amount of the instalment shall be recovered as an arrears of land revenue;
(d) in the event of default in the payment of two consecutive instalments, the amount already paid shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government and the land shall be liable to be resumed; and
(e) if any one, due to adverse seasonal conditions the land revenue in respect of the land is remitted or suspended the recovery of the instalment payable that year and of the instalments payable in subsequent years shall be postponed by one year.
8. The land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after value of the land, buildings and trees thereon is paid in full.
9. The assignee shall engage himself in the direct cultivation of the land assigned.
10. The assignee shall pay, on the due dates, the land revenue assessment, cesses and local taxes, in force from time to time, in respect of the land assigned with effect from the year in which the assignment is sanctioned.
11. The assignee shall abide by such other conditions as may be imposed under rule 9."
10. As per rule 9(1) of the above said rules, the land assigned shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of the period specified in sub clause (a) of clause (iii) of the rule 9 of the rules, which states that the land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid in full or after the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of assignment, whichever is later.
11. The issues raised in the Writ Petitions are as follows:-
(1) whether the petitioners have any right to alienate the lands assigned to them, immediately after payment of the entire cost of the land or only after the expiry of 20 years from the date of assignment? (2) whether principles of natural justice has been followed before cancellation of assignments?
(3) Whether any detailed enquiry is contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965? (4) Whether the purchasers have any right to file a Writ Petition, along with beneficiaries? And whether they should be heard?
12. Issue - I : The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on a conjoint reading of Rule 6(3) r/w 9 (iii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Land reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 that, on payment of full value of the land, the assignee has a right to alienate the land, cannot be countenanced, for reason that, payment of instalments would only confer the right of vesting of land and for possession and enjoyment, it would not confer any right to alienate the property, within a period of 20 years, as stipulated under Rule 9 (1)(iii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.
13. At the risk of repetition, the said rule is extracted:-
(iii)(a) The land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid in full or after the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of assignment, whichever is later."
14. The conjunction 'or' which is used in Rule 9(1)(iii)(a), cannot be interpreted to mean that the moment the full cost is paid, the assignee acquires an alienable right. The words "whichever is later", used at the end of the rule, makes it clear that the beneficiary does not acquire any alienable right immediately, on payment of the value of the land. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider Rule 9(iv) of the rules, which states that that the assignee shall engage himself in the direct cultivation of the land assigned. Condition No.9 of the agreement executed by the assignee is also to the same effect that the assignee would engage himself in direct cultivation of the land assigned.
15. Reading of the rule in entirety makes it clear that the expression "whichever is later", used at the end of the sentence reflects the intention of the legislature, for the usage of the land by the beneficiary, and that there should not be any alienation of land, immediately, on payment of the land cost. That is why, the Legislature has incorporated a positive condition in the rule. Looking at from a different point of view, i.e., if the intention of the Legislature is to confer an alienable right on payment of cost of the land, the Legislature would have used the expression, "whichever is earlier", instead of "whichever is the later". The rule does not state, whichever event occurs first. The rule emphasis the event or the period, which is longer. If the contention of the petitioners have to be accepted, then the very purpose of prescribing a long period of 20 years in the statutory rule, not to alienate would be defated. A poor beneficiary to whom land is assigned, can be lured by a rich and affluent purchaser or for any other purpose, the beneficiary would sell away the land. The purpose is to achieve economic justice by usage of the land and that would be defeated by the assignees/purchasers, if there is any alienation, before the specified period.
16. The land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid in full or after the expiry of 20 years, from the date of assignment whichever is later. Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, states that any violation of the conditions of assignment, as prescribed in sub-rule (1) or in the deed of assignment in Form F is noticed, the assigning authority shall cancel the assignment. Thus, the combined reading of Rule 6 and Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, makes it abundantly clear that the land assigned shall not be sold or alienated within 20 years from the date of assignment and if there is a contravention of the conditions of assignment or statutory provisions, the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms Department is competent to take proceedings for cancellation of assignment.
17. When the statutory rules prescribe a condition that there shall not be a sale or transfer etc., of the assigned land, within the specified period and for the contravention, action can be taken for cancellation of assignment, then the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 will come into operation, no sooner, the contravention comes to light. However, as per Rule 9(2) of the said rules, no such cancellation shall be ordered without giving the assignee an opportunity to make his representation.
18. On the aspect of vesting, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions.
(i) In F. & V. Merchants Union v. Improvement Trust, Delhi reported in AIR 1957 SC 344, the Supreme Court explained the word, "vest" as follows:
"The word "Vest" has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the persons or the authority in whom it vests. It may vest in title or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation."
The Supreme Court, in the above reported judgment, at Paragraph 19, further explained that, "19. That the word "vest" is a word of variable import is shown by provisions of Indian statutes also. For example, Section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) empowers the court at the time of the making of the order of adjudication or thereafter to appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent and further provides that "such property shall thereupon vest in such receiver". The property vests in the receiver for the purpose of administering the estate of the insolvent for the payment of his debts after realising his assets. The property of the insolvent vests in the receiver not for all purposes but only for the purpose of the Insolvency Act and the receiver has no interest of his own in the property. On the other hand, Sections 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), provide that the property so acquired, upon the happening of certain events, shall "vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances". In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17 the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration. It would thus appear that the word "vest" has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or the authority in whom it vests. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation. The provisions of the Improvement Act, particularly Sections 45 to 49 and 54 and 54-A when they speak of a certain building or street or square or other land vesting in a municipality or other local body or in a trust, do not necessarily mean that ownership has passed to any of them."
(ii) The word "vest" used in Andra Pradesh (Andra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotiwari Act, 1956, (37 of 1956), came up for consideration before the Supreme in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu reported in 1991 Supp (II) SCC 228. After extracting the dictionary meaning of the word 'vest', 'vesting', the Supreme Court held that, the word "vest" bears variable colour, taking its content from the context, in which it came to be used. At paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that, "10. The word 'vest' clothes varied colours from the context and situation in which the word came to be used in a statute or rule. Chamber's Mid-Century Dictionary at p. 1230 defines 'vesting' in the legal sense "to settle, secure, or put in fixed right of possession; to endow, to descend, devolve or to take effect, as a right". In Black's Law Dictionary, (5th edn. at p. 1401) the meaning of the word 'vest' is given as : "to give an immediate, fixed right of present or future enjoyment; to accrue to; to be fixed; to take effect; to clothe with possession; to deliver full possession of land or of an estate; to give seisin; to enfeoff". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, (4th edn., Vol. 5 at p. 2938), the word 'vested' was defined in several senses. At p. 2940 in item 12 it is stated thus "as to the interest acquired by public bodies, created for a particular purpose, in works such as embankments which are 'vested' in them by statute", see Port of London Authority v. Canvey Island Commissioners in which it was held that the statutory vesting was to construct the sea wall against inundation or damages etc. and did not acquire fee simple. Item 4 at p. 2939, the word 'vest', in the absence of a context, is usually taken to mean "vest in interest rather than vest in possession". In item 8 to 'vest', "generally means to give the property in". Thus the word 'vest' bears variable colour taking its content from the context in which it came to be used. Take for instance the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. By operation of Sections 16 and 17 thereof the property so acquired shall vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. Thereby, absolute right, title and interest is vested in the government without any limitation divesting the pre-existing rights of its owner."
(iii) The word 'Vest' came up for consideration in M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, with reference to Section 3 of the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, at Paragraph 21, held as follows:
"21. Section 3 provides for acquisition of rights in relation to the 'area' defined in Section 2(a). It says that on and from the commencement of this Act the right, title and interest in relation to the area shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government. It is well-settled that the meaning of 'vest' takes colour from the context in which it is used and it is not necessarily the same in every provision or in every context. In Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 1977 (1) SCC 155 , it was held: (SCR p.1081 : SCC pp.164-65, para 16) "Is such a construction of 'vesting' in two different senses in the same section, sound? Yes. It is, because 'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has many meanings. The context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. That is why even definition clauses allow themselves to be modified by contextual compulsions."
The meaning of 'vest' in Section 3 and in Section 6 is of significance in the context of the constitutional validity of the statute. It can vary in different parts of the statute or even the same section, depending on the context of its use."
19. In the light of the above discussion and considering the intention behind the legislation, restricting alienation for a period of twenty years, notwithstanding the payment of the entire land cost, the word 'vest' used in rule 9 of the above said rules, vests in the beneficiary, only a right to possess and enjoy the property and that no alienable right is acquired, immediately, on payment of the land cost. Alienation is statutorily prohibited for a specific period. Vesting does not confer any title. Hence, the first ground of attack of the writ petitioners that, on payment of the entire cost of the land, the petitioners have acquired an alienable right over the property, is rejected.
20. The next ground to be considered is whether the cancellation of assignment has been made without providing the petitioners a reasonable opportunity?
21. As per the version of the Assistant Commission of Land Reforms, Chennai, notice in "C" No.114551 of 2009 dated 10.10.2009 was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due, to all the assignees, directing them to appear for an enquiry on 20.10.2009, failing which, they were intimated that the assignments made in their favour would be cancelled. But the notices sent to them, by registered post with acknowledgement due, were returned to the authorities, undelivered. However, all the petitioners/assignees have sent their representations, dated 25.11.2009 to the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli, stating that they have sold the assigned lands on 6.3.1998 and subsequently, possession of the lands have been handed over to the purchasers, the second petitioners in all the Writ Petitions. Therefore, it is evident from their own version that lands have been sold, contrary to statutory provisions and conditions of deed of assignments. The contention that they were not put on notice before cancellation of the assignments and that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted, for the reason, that the specific averments in the counter affidavit made by the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chennai, the second respondent herein, that all the assignees have made a representation on 25.11.2009, admitting the fact that they have sold the lands on 6.3.2008, to the second petitioners, on the premise, that they had acquired an alienable right, on payment of entire land cost, by the writ petitioners, have not been refuted by the petitioners, by filing any rejoinder.
22. What is stated under Proviso of Rule 9(2) of the above said rules is that no cancellation shall be ordered without giving the assignee an opportunity to make his representation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no enquiry has been conducted before the cancellation of the assignment, statutory rules do not contemplate any enquiry. There is a limitation in the rule itself. Exclusion of conducting an enquiry is explicit in the rule and it cannot be stretched too far, by interpreting the provision, contrary to the intention. Suffice, the assigning authority affords an assignee, a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. In the case on hand, such an opportunity has been provided to each one of the assignees. When a detailed enquiry is not contemplated under the statutory rules, it is not open to the beneficiaries of the lands/assignees to add something which is not contemplated in the legislation. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
23. Assignment has been made in favour of the first petitioner, in each of the Writ Petitions, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners do not acquire any alienable right, before the expiry of 20 years, from the date of assignment. The assignments made to them, have been cancelled, for violation of statutory provisions, after giving them a reasonable opportunity. The purchasers, second petitioners in each of the writ petitions, have no right to be given an opportunity of making any representation before cancellation. Orders of cancellation of assignments have been served on the assignees. Persons, who claim a right or interest over the property, pursuant to an action, prohibited under the statutory provision, cannot demand that he should be provided with an opportunity, before cancellation. Needless to state that no sale or transaction, in contravention of a statutory provision, can be recognised and approved by Courts. Any sale or transfer, during the period of assignment, contrary to statutory provisions, would not confer any right or interest, on the second petitioners, to enter into the shoes of the assignees, to challenge an order of cancellation, along with the assignees.
24. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the impugned order of cancellation of assignments. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The authorities are at liberty to proceed further , in accordance with the statutory provisions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
asvm/skm To
1.The Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Tirunelveli.
3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District.