Madras High Court
Tea Estates India Limited vs The Secretary To Government on 12 January, 2011
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/01/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) No.957 of 2010 and W.A.(MD) No.958 of 2010 Tea Estates India Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, S.Govindarajan, Highways Post, Theni District - 625 519 ... Appellant/Petitioner in both W.As. Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni - 625 531 3.P.Muthuveeran, I.A.S, The District Collector, Theni District, Theni - 625 531. 4.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Uthamapalayam - 625 533. ... Respondents/Respondents in both W.As. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.12.2010 in M.P.(MD)Nos.4 and 3 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.5016 of 2010. WP.No.5016/2010 Praying Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records of the respondents culminating in the impugned notices dated 27.01.2010 and 09.04.2010 issued by the fourth Respondent and all further proceedings there under and quash the same. M.P.No.3/2010 : Miscellaneous Petition filed praying the Honourable Court to clarify the order dated 30.04.2010 in WP.(MD)No.5016 of 2010 to the effect of a direction to the respondents to furnish FMB Sketches for the entire lands measuring an extent of 8817.89 acres correlating to the old Survey No.2063 with demarcation of the government/forest lands and alleged encroachment. M.P.No.4/2010 Miscellaneous Petition filed praying to pass orders directing the Respondent/the Petitioners herein to Co-operative and participate in the Survey which shall be taken up in the presence of the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Hon'ble Court as all documents ordered to be given have been provided to the petitioners herein. !For Appellant ... Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, (in both W.As) Senior Counsel ^For Respondents ... MRS.V.Chellammal, AAG and 1,2 & 4 Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. :COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SUBBIAH,J.
These appeals are directed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in M.P.(MD)Nos.3 and 4 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.5016 of 2010, dated 03.12.2010 whereby the learned single Judge directed the respondents to survey the lands belonging to the appellant as directed by this Court, by its earlier order, dated 30.04.2010 and to furnish a report to the appellant without furnishing the sub divided house pattas.
2.Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:
a)The appellant is the largest plantation company in the State of Tamil Nadu. Originally, the appellant company was functioning in the name and style of "Madras Tea Estates Limited". The appellant claims that it is holding an extent of 10,619.73 acres in Theni District alone. Originally, by virtue of assignment order in G.O.Ms.No.2519, dated 26.11.1931, an extent of 8915.62 acres was assigned in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.1229, dated 21.06.1934, the appellant was assigned a further 979 acres. Thereafter, in the year 1963 by revenue settlement orders No.1028, dated 08.09.1963, an extent of 725.11 acres was settled to the appellant. Thus, the appellant claimed as the owner of 10,619.73 acres of land. In the year 1977, pursuant to the order passed by the Land Board, the petitioner had surrendered the surplus extent of 6389.42 acres. After the completion of entire process of surrender, when the land was surveyed, it was found that the appellant was in possession to an extent of 3999.05 acres as against 4230.31 acres. According to the appellant, instead of surrendering 6389.42 acres, the appellant had inadvertently surrendered 6620 acres resulting in an excess of 231.26 acres having been surrendered to the Government. It is claimed that as the Land Board has not been constituted for the past 25 years, the appellant is unable to bring this issue before the Land Board for retrieving the excess land surrendered to the Government.
b)The fourth respondent had issued notices under Sections 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The appellant had challenged the said proceedings, dated 27.01.2010 and 09.04.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.5016 of 2010. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed by the learned single Judge on consent giving liberty to survey the property of the appellant with their men and also to find out as to whether any encroachment was made by the appellant and also directed the officials of the respondents to survey the property in question in the presence of the representative of the appellant and also in the presence of the advocate commissioners. In the said order, this Court has also directed the appellant to furnish topographic sketch, field boundary sketch, satellite map issued by the Anna University and the sub divided house pattas made by the Village Administrative Officer to the representative of the appellant before conducting survey.
c)The appellant subsequently has filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010 in the said writ petition to direct the respondents to furnish the FMB sketches for the entire lands measuring to an extent of 8817.89 acres correlating to the old Survey No.2063 with demarcation of the Government/Forest lands and alleged encroachment.
d)Subsequently, the second respondent herein has also filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2010 in the said writ petition to co- operate and participate in the survey which shall be taken up in the presence of the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Court as all documents ordered to be given have been provided to the appellant herein.
3.The learned single Judge by order dated 03.12.2010 directed the respondents to survey the lands belonging to the appellant as directed by this Court, by its earlier order dated 30.04.2010 and to furnish a report to the appellant without furnishing the sub-divided house pattas. Hence, the present appeals.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents had issued the notices under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act without ascertaining the alleged encroachment. Unless the alleged encroachment is ascertained, the notices issued under provisions of the Land Encroachment Act cannot be issued. Further, unless and until authenticated document such as certified copy of FMB sketch to the entire extent of land is produced by the respondents, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether there is really any encroachment or not. But the respondents have not so far furnished any authenticated document to the appellant to enable them for effective participation in the survey proceedings. Hence instead of proceeding with an interim order passed by this Court, taking the main writ petition for final hearing, the notices issued under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act have to be quashed or alternatively, the respondents may be directed to furnish the authenticated documents with regard to the subject land to the appellant so that the appellant can participate in the survey proceedings as directed by the learned single Judge.
5.We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, we find that the learned single Judge has passed a consent order on 30.04.2010 for conducting survey of land to find out the alleged encroachment. Subsequently, in M.P.(MD)Nos.3 and 4 of 2010, by order, dated 03.12.2010, the learned single Judge has also given a liberty to the appellant to raise his objection after receiving the report to be filed by the respondents after completion of survey. Under such circumstances, we are of the view no prejudice would be caused to the appellant, if the survey is conducted as directed by the learned single Judge. If the appellant has any grievance with regard to the survey proceedings as observed by the learned single Judge, the appellant can always raise its objection after receiving the report. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
7.The writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. W.P.(MD)No.5016 of 2010 and pending miscellaneous petitions are directed to be posted before the learned single Judge.
sms To
1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni - 625 531
3.P.Muthuveeran, I.A.S, The District Collector, Theni District, Theni - 625 531.
4.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Uthamapalayam - 625 533.