Madras High Court
K.Chairman Durai (Died) vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAV ON 11/01/2013 DATED:23/04/2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.34277 of 2002 1.K.Chairman Durai (Died) 2.C.Bagyavathi @ Bagyam Chairman Durai 3.C.Vasanthamary 4.C.Raja John 5.C.Chandrasekar Christopher 6.C.Sugantha Esther 7.C.Baskar Jeshuram 8.C.Ebenezer ... Petitioners (P2 to P8 are substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.28 of 2012) vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by it's Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai. 2.The Collector, Nilgiris District, Ooty. 3.The Revenue Division Officer, Gudalur. 4.The Settlement Tahsildar, Gudalur, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to L.Dis.A1/3713/2001, dated 08.11.2001, on the file of the third respondent, quash the same and directing the third respondent to issue Patta to the petitioner respect of the land comprised O.S.No.Pt4 and R.S.No.853/1, of Thorapalli, Gudalur Taluk. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, A.G.P. * * * * * O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Order, dated 08.11.2001, on the file of the third respondent, and to direct the third respondent to issue Patta to the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in O.S.No.Pt4 and R.S.No.853/1, of Thorapalli, Gudalur Taluk.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
Originally, the petitioner Chairman Durai filed the writ petition seeking relief as stated above. But, during the pendency of the writ petition, he died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as necessary parties to prosecute the matter.
3. The petitioners 2 to 8 submit that they are the legal heirs of the first petitioner Late.Chairman Durai. The first petitioner along with Jagatha and Sasikala purchased leasehold rights over the property, comprised in O.S.No.Pt4 and R.S.No.853/1 of Gudalur Village, measuring an extent of 7.02 Acres, from H.C.Starr, Coonoor, under a registered document, dated 26.10.1976. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the said 7.02 acres along with 1.53 acres handed over by their vendor. This property originally belonged to Nilambur Kovilagam. Since the first petitioner was a Government servant, he obtained permission from the Commissioner, Revenue Administration for purchase of 2.5 Acres property. Ever since the date of purchase, he had been in possession by paying kist and had been cultivating coffee and other crops therein.
4. The petitioners further submit that on 24.04.1978, the first petitioner was directed to appear before the fourth respondent for enquiry and after enquiry it was informed that Patta would be given to them. Thereafter, the third respondent vide Order in Dark Nos.827, 828 and 829/90 assigned the land in O.S.No.Pt4 and R.S.No.853/1 and they were directed to pay the assigned land value, tree value and other charges for issuance of Patta. Accordingly, they paid all the charges to the Tahsildar, Gudalur and obtained receipts, but there was no further progress. Hence, they submitted a petition to the third respondent and the third respondent informed that assignment of land was barred by the Government in Nilgiris District and that their request would be considered as soon as stay is vacated by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court, by Judgment dated 18.08.1999, dismissed the appeals in the Gudalur Jenman Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Riotwari) Act. The appellants were directed to approach the authorities for grant of patta. Since the stay got vacated, appeals were made to the third respondent. The third respondent sent a reply, on 12.02.2001, and thereafter his son appeared before the second respondent and handed over all the records and documents. On 08.11.2001, they received a letter from the second respondent stating that the assignment of land is barred by G.O.Ms.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner obtained departmental permission to acquire movable property as required in the service rules. Obtaining such permission is not a relevant issue for grant of assignment. In the meantime, the appellant in his application, dated 08.05.2001 addressed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, for grant of Patta in respect of R.S.No.853/1 of Gudalur Taluk and Village, to an extent of 7.02 Acres and he has been informed that grant of assignment Patta is banned by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989 and also informed that it will be considered as soon as ban is lifted. Aggrieved by the said Order, the (deceased) petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34277 of 2002 before this Court. The ban order issued by the Government is applicable to the petitioners also as the assignment is banned for agricultural purposes and also issued ban order even for assigning house site, on 27.10.1992, vide G.O.Ms.No.1205, Revenue (A2) Department.
6. Further, the third respondent submits that though the first petitioner paid the land value, tree value and other charges, the Government banned for the grant of assignment Patta in respect of all the hilly districts of the State. Mere payment of land cost does not entitle the claimant to claim absolute title over the land. The claimant paid the land cost only for conditional assignment and in this case the condition in the form of a ban has been invoked by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989, and the same is still in force. In order to regularize the objectionable encroachments, a High Level Committee has been constituted and on the recommendation of the High Level Committee, the case will be considered suitably by the Government. The petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8159 of 1981 to direct the authorities concerned to issue Patta in respect of R.S.No.853/1 of Gudalur Village, which stands classified as 'Anatheenam' in the revenue records and hence the contention of the petitioners is wrong. The land in S.No.853/1, comprising an extent of 3.42.0 Hectares is basically a land covered by the Jenmam Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1969. The Settlement Officer during 1978 decided that the first petitioner is not eligible for grant of Patta as per the provisions contained in the Jenmam Abolition Act, 1969 and rejected the claim, after examining the bona-fides of the claim of the petitioner and classified the land as 'Anatheenam' and the rights over the land is vested with the Government. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to prefer appeal before the Tribunal within a stipulated period. But, after a lapse of two decades, the first petitioner filed this writ petition during 2002 citing the Order, dated 13.11.1989, wherein this Court directed the authorities to grant assignment taking into the fact the petitioner's inability to pay the demanded land cost within the stipulated time. The non-compliance of the beneficiary to the payment of balance of land cost was the only subject matter that this Court took up for a decision and directed accordingly. The settlement authorities of the Jenman land had not agreed to assign the land and the non-compliance of payment balance of land cost by the petitioner of W.P.No.3189 of 1981 was considered sympathetically by this Court and a direction was given to the Revenue authorities to grant assignment on collection of the balance land cost. In obedience to the direction of the High Court, the authorities granted conditional assignment, though a ban order was issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1168. However, the revenue authorities considered the plea of the first petitioner and during the course of proceedings, the Government banned the assignment of land for agricultural purposes and vide G.O.Ms.No.1205, dated 27.10.1992, banned assignments of house sites also. Therefore, the assignment cannot be quoted as a precedence as the issue of ban order was only for 3 months and the issue of ban order is not at all a criteria or a subject matter in W.P.No.8159 of 1981. Hence, quoting the Order, dated 13.11.1989, of this Court in the present case and representing as a similarly placed person is unwarranted and needs to be rejected.
7. The petitioners replied that the license to cure unmanufactured products liable to Central Excise and Duty was also transferred to the deceased petitioner Chairman Durai and others by the vendors. One H.C.Starr got the leasehold rights from one Janaki Amma and others, by a registered document No.68 of 1967, dated 02.12.1967. The said Janaki Amma and others got the lease hold rights from Nilambur Kovilagam. Numerous follow-ups were made with the third respondent, after paying the assigned value for land, tree and other charges without any success and finally the Late.Chairman Durai appeared in person before the third respondent and represented the facts and circumstances of the case and the third respondent, vide order dated 29.11.1990, stated that the assignment of land was banned and the request will be considered as soon as the stay is vacated. During 1999, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal between Manjushree Plantation and others vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, which pertains to Gudalur Jenmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1969 and the appellants were directed to approach the authorities for grant of Patta. Since the case was dismissed and the stay was vacated, the petitioners once again approached the third respondent vide letter dated 31.01.2001 and the third respondent, vide letter dated 12.02.2001, advised them to approach his office with available documents. As the sixth petitioner was taking care of the plantation and cultivation activities in R.S.No.853/1, he met the third respondent with the available documents on behalf of his father and others. The third respondent told him that even though his father and others paid the assigned land value, tree value and other charges during 1982 outside the provisions of Act 24 of 1969, the ban on assignment still continues and the direction given by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal to approach the authorities for grant of patta was not applicable to them.
8. The petitioners further submit that once again they approached the third respondent for the assignment of Patta, on 08.05.2001. The third respondent, vide order dated 08.11.2001 informed the ban of the assignment by citing G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989, which according to him is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as they have paid the assigned value of the land, tree and other charges during 1982 itself to the Government. But, the said Government Order was passed during 1989 and that too the said Government Order does not have any retrospective effect. It is purely due to the negligence of the third respondent that the assignment Patta was not issued to them and the third respondent cannot take advantage of his omissions or commission by citing ban order of 1989, which has come into force after seven years. Furthermore, G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006, has set-aside all ban orders regarding the issue of house site Patta for Government Special Scheme. Consequently, by G.O.No.2(D) No.711, dated 30.11.2007, the Government has even removed the annual income ceiling limit for issue of the house site Patta. G.O.Ms.No.366, Revenue Department, has extended the time limit to issue house site Patta upto 2010. In the Revenue Department policy note 2012-2013, the Minister of Revenue has stated that 2312 Pattas have been issued in the hill village of Panchamalai in Gangavalli Taluk of Salem District. The recent G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 23.05.2012, once again extended the time limit for issuance of Patta upto 30.09.2012 under the Government's Special Scheme. The Taluk Office of Gudalur has recommended approximately seven house site Pattas under this Government's Special Scheme. The third respondent has not disclosed the above facts in his additional counter and has referred only G.O.Ms.No.1205, which bans the issuance of house site Patta. Though the third respondent accepted the fact that the he has received the assigned value of the land, trees and other charges from the petitioners during 1982 itself, he has failed to explain as to why he did not comply with his own order for issuance of assignment Patta instead of citing G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989, which is not at all applicable to them. The third respondent delayed the issuance of assignment Patta due to sheer negligence and the omission and commission on his part, even though they had paid the assigned value of land, trees and other charges fully during 1982 itself. From the letter, dated 08.11.2001, sent by the third respondent, they came to know that G.O.Ms.No.1168 bans the issuance of house site Patta. If the third respondent issued the assignment Patta, after receiving the assigned value of land, trees and other charges during 1982 itself, the question of delay could not have raised. Furthermore, the third respondent failed to reconsider or review their case on merits, but has relied on a Government Order, which was not at all applicable to them and has wasted eleven years.
9. The petitioners further submit that one Kuriokose Antony of Sree Madurai Gudalur Village, a similarly placed petitioner got directions from this Court for conditional assignment during 1989 and the third respondent complied with the directions of this Court only after seven years that too after the petitioner therein proceeded with the contempt proceedings. During 1997, the conditional assignment Patta was issued to Kuriokose Antony. The third respondent had taken more than seven years to comply with the directions of this Court. The present case is also factually and legally on the same footing of the said case. Hence, for all the above reasons, the petitioners pray this Court to allow this writ petition.
10. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.Subramanian appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner and two others have purchased the subject matter of the land to an extent of of 7.02 acres along with 1.53 acres from their vendor under a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1976. From the date of purchase, the first petitioner was enjoying the said property without any interference. At the time of purchasing the said property, the first petitioner was a retired District Revenue Officer, who had obtained permission from the Government and purchased the same. The petitioner has been remitting mandatory tax to the statutory authorities. Over the said lands, coffee plants were cultivated. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Settlement Tahsildar, Gudalur, had instructed the first petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent, who had directed him to pay the land value and value of the trees thereon, for the issuance of patta. Accordingly, the first petitioner has remitted the value against the receipt dated 18.08.1982, but the patta is still to be issued. As such, the impugned proceedings is vitiated in overlooking the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The third respondent had issued a G.O. dated 25.07.1989 with prospective effect and as such, the G.O. is barred.
11. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.Subramanian appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner had paid tax from the year 1976 and he was in physical possession and enjoying the said property. To that effect, he had issued an adangal. The Settlement Tahsildar had also issued a communication for granting ryotwari patta, which also clearly proves that the petitioner was in possession. The Commissioner, who is attached to the Revenue Department had permitted the petitioner to acquire the said landed property, as per Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rule. As such, the petitioner had acquired the land after observing necessary formalities.
12. The highly competent counsel further submits that G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989 prevented the cultivation of the cultivatable lands situated at the hill station. The said G.O. is prejudicial to the petitioner since he is cultivating the lands from the year 1976. The G.O. duly permitted the tribals to continue their cultivation and as such, the petitioner is also entitled to get similar rights and enjoy the occupation of the property. The neighbours of the property had filed writ petition to issue an assignment patta in favour of them and the same was ordered by this Court and as such, similar relief is also entitled to the present petitioner. The highly competent counsel had annexed relevant documents in order to prove the possession of the property by the petitioner. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition with necessary direction to issue patta to the petitioners.
13. Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, highly competent Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioner and others have purchased the lease hold rights from one H.C.Starr, Coonoor, to an extent of 7.02 acres situated at Thorapalli under a registered document. However, the vendor had given the possession of a total extent of 8.55 acres, which he has already occupied. The land was classified as dry land. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Commissioner, Revenue Department for the purchase of 2.5 acres. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader further submits that for granting ryotwari patta, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, had conducted an enquiry and informed the petitioner that the patta would be given at any time. The petitioner has also paid the land value, tree value, for which, the Tahsildar also issued receipts on 18.08.1982 and as such, the patta would be given at any time. He further submits that the petitioner made an application to the third respondent herein / Revenue Divisional Officer, on 08.05.2001 for grant of patta. After perusing the document of the petitioner, he has been informed that the grant of assignment patta, is banned by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989. Further, the petitioner had been informed that the issuance of patta will be considered after the ban is lifted. The said order is fit to be proceeded further. The G.O. is operating to all persons similar to the petitioner. Further, a High Level Committee has been constituted to regularize the objectionable encroachments of those who continue occupation by way of construction of houses. The grant of assignment patta is banned in the Nilgiris District.
14. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader further submits that the first petitioner, viz., Chairman Durai had expired and he had purchased the lease hold rights along with other two persons. The Government also issued another G.O.Ms.No.1205, Revenue (A2) Department, dated 27.10.1992, to prevent assigning house-sites in the Nilgiris District. The mere payment of land cost and tree value does not entitle the claimant to claim absolute title over the land. The petitioner had paid the land costs only for a conditional assignment. The G.O.Ms.No.1168 is still in force. Further, the land is classified as "Anadeenam" as per revenue records. As such, the civil rights over the lands are vested with the Government. The writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay. The G.O. had been issued in order to protect the ecology and to maintain a fresh environment. Hence, the highly competent Additional Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
15. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr.R.Subramaniam submits that the licence to cure unmanufactured products, which are entitled to be under the purview of the Central Excise and Duty, was also transferred to the first petitioner and others by the vendors. The first petitioner and others had received notice from the Settlement Tahsildar for their appearance. Further, in the year 1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dismissed the Civil Appeal reported in Manjushree Plantation and others vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellants were directed to approach the authorities for the grant of patta. On the basis of this judgment, the first petitioner had approached the third respondent for issuance of patta. The petitioner also paid land value and other charges and as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive patta. As per the Government policy for the year 2013, 2312 pattas had been issued in the Hill Region at Cuddalore. Some of the persons were issued pattas for the same location, but the petitioners had not been granted patta so far.
16. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view:-
(i) The first petitioner, viz., Chairman Durai, now deceased and two others had purchased the lease hold rights from one H.C.Starr under a registered document dated 26.10.1976. The vendor had handed over the land to an extent of 7.02 acres along with 1.53 acres. From the date of purchase of the said lands, the first petitioner (deceased) and others are in physical possession and enjoyment as of now.
(ii) As per the third respondent's order, the first petitioner had paid land value, tree value and other charges to the Tahsildar, Gudalur, in order to issue a patta. The payment was made on 18.08.1982 and during the relevant period, no ban order was enforced and as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive patta from the respondents, who have committed promissory estoppel.
(iii) The third respondent in his counter statement categorically admitted that G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989, Revenue Department will operate with prospective effect. As such, the earlier decision taken by the third respondent for issuing patta against the payment of land value, tree value and other charges, has not been followed. The said payment was made on 18.08.1982 and as such, the G.O.Ms.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989 i.e., ban order for the issuance of patta is not covered in the petitioner's case since the agreement stands abiding (in accordance) as the offer and acceptance was concluded in the year 1982 itself. The same was accepted by both parties.
(iv) The petitioner had remitted mandatory taxes to the statutory authorities from the year 1976 and as such, he is entitled to receive patta.
(v) The petitioners are cultivating the said property and as such, the said land could be treated as agricultural land. Since the agricultural operations should not be disturbed, the issuance of patta is of paramount importance.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers and the views of this Court, listed as (i) to (v), this Court disposes the above writ petition with a direction to the third respondent herein to issue patta to the petitioners in respect of lands in O.S.No.Pt4 and R.S.No.853/1, of Thorapalli, Gudalur Taluk, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned order pertaining to L.Dis.A1/3713/2001, dated 08.11.2001, on the file of the third respondent, is quashed.
18. In the result, the above writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
23 /04/2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
r n s
To:
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department, Chennai.
2.The Collector,
Nilgiris District, Ooty.
3.The Revenue Division Officer,
Gudalur.
4.The Settlement Tahsildar,
Gudalur,
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.34277 of 2002
23/04/2014