Madras High Court
B.Jayaraman vs The Addl. Chief Secretary &
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.19757/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
16.08.2022 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.19757 OF 2017
AND
W.M.P. NO.21333 OF 2017
B.Jayaraman .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary &
Commissioner of Land Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner
Of Survey & Settlement
Survey House, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
3. The Settlement Officer (North)
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5. The Tahsildar
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.19757/2017
Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the
respondents, culminating in the impugned order in reference
Rc.No.K1/13765/2009 dated 22.12.2016 passed by the 1st respondent in respect
of the lands for an extent of 2.30 acres in S. No.346/4 and for an extent of 6.48
acres in S. No.347/1 and also for an extent of 5.67 acres in S. No.347/5 situate in
Nemili-B (Beemathangal) Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District
and quash the same and direct her respondents to issue patta in the name of the
writ petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Tamizhmani, SC, for
Mr.V.Srinivasa Babu
For Respondents : Ms.Akila Rajendran, GA
ORDER
The cancellation of the patta issued by the 4th respondent, viz., the Assistant Settlement Officer, which has been confirmed by the 2nd respondent, having been set aside by the 1st respondent has resulted in the filing of the present writ petition assailing the said order.
2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
2. It is the case of the petitioner that lands measuring various extent in different survey numbers in Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were originally owned by one Late Govindakrishna Reddy, who had purchased the same along with some other lands by way of Court auction held by the Hon’ble Sub Court, Chengalpet on 19.11.1934 and subsequently sale deed bearing Document No.1372 of 1936 dated 29.2.1936 before the Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon the death of the said Govindakrishna Reddy, the lands stood inherited by his brother Nandakrishna Reddy, who was enjoying the same till his death on 1.2.1971 and, thereafter, his sons Sathyanaraya Reddy and Radhakrishna Reddy had inherited the properties. Sathyanaraya Reddy was enjoying the said lands along with his four sons and one daughter jointly. The said four sons and one daughter of Sathyanaraya Reddy had executed a registered release deed bearing Document No.3039 of 2006 dated 24.2.2006 in favour of their father Sathyanaraya Reddy and thereby the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 said Sathyanarayana Reddy became the sole owner of the said lands and continued his possession.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Sathyanarayana Reddy sold the said lands by way of three sale deeds to one M.R.C. Reddy, which was thereafter sold to the petitioner by way of three different documents on 18.04.2007 and ever since the said date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that originally the lands were part of a Zamindari Estate, which was taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act 1948’). Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in the year 1962 and at the said time, mistakenly the said lands were notified by the authorities of the revenue department as ‘Grazing Poramboke’ in the revenue records. Since the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners were residents of Andhra Pradesh at the time ryotwari settlement was introduced, they were not able to place the requisite materials and obtain ryotwari patta, which led to the erroneous classification by the revenue 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 department. It is the further case of the petitioner that once again the lands were further wrongly classified as “Government Anadheenam”.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that his predecessors-in-title had knocked on the doors of various authorities ultimately landing at the door of the Assistant Settlement Officer to rectify the error made in the revenue records and grant patta in their name for the said lands. After detailed enquiry, the 5 th erepondent had ordered change of classification from “Punchai Anadheenam” to “Ryotwari Puncha Land” by order dated 26.7.2000, which resulted in the Tahsildar ordering patta for the said lands in Patta No.3456 in the name of Sathyanaraya Reddy and chitta and adangal were transferred in his name.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that he applied for transferring the patta in his name on 31.10.2007. Pending the said application, the petitioner received notice dated 3.5.10 from the 1st respondent informing that the order of the 4th respondent is being reviewed and directed the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that show cause notice dated 17.8.10 was issued by the 2nd respondent to which the petitioner submitted his 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 detailed reply dated 9.11.10. The 2nd respondent, considering the reply and also the other materials concurred with the order passed by the 5th respondent.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent stayed the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 1.6.2011 and caused show cause notice on the petitioner, dated 23.1.2012, by proceeding suo motu to which also the petitioner gave a detailed reply on 13.2.2012, however, the 1st respondent, rejecting the plea of the petitioner and without considering the submissions and documents, set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 26.7.2000 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.4.2011, vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2016, which has resulted in the filing of the present petition.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the 2nd respondent has invoked the provisions of Section 5 (2) and has upheld the order passed by the 4th respondent, the proceedings, suo motu, initiated by the 1st respondent to review the said order and the subsequent cancellation of the patta granted by the 4th respondent is per se impermissible and unsustainable, as 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 appeal against the said lies to the government and, therefore, the exercise of suo motu powers by the 1st respondent is legally wrong. In this regard, decision of this Court in the case of M.Mumoorthy & Ors. – Vs – Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors. (W.P. No.26301/2009 – Dated 8.3.2022) is relied on, wherein this Court has held that where appeal remedy is available, the exercise of suo motu proceedings cannot be permitted.
10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the finding of the 1st respondent that the application for patta had been filed beyond the date prescribed by the Government also cannot be sustained as this Court, already in the case of Lakshmi & Ors. – Vs – The Prl. Secretary & Commissioner of Survey & Settlement & Ors. (W.P. No.21240/2017 – Dated 18.12.2017), wherein it has been held that a right created by the provisions of the Act cannot be extinguished either by a rule or an executive order.
11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the limitation issue raised by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained, as the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had been diligently following up the issuance of patta with 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 various authorities, which had finally come before the 4th respondent. Therefore, the question of limitation and non-filing of the application within the period prescribed under the G.O. Ms. No.714, Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department is wholly misconceived.
12. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to similar piece of land owned by the same family member of the petitioner comprised in S. No.310/1 and covered under Old Patta No.3, this Court has dealt with the same and passed an order directing the authorities to reclassify the land and issue patta in favour of the petitioner therein. The petitioner in the present case, also being identically placed, the said order would stand squarely attracted to the case on hand.
13. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner having been granted patta after due verification of the materials and upon proper enquiry by the 4th respondent, which has been approved by the 2nd respondent on suo motu review, the cancellation of patta by the 1st respondent, by initiating a suo motu proceedings 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 once again is wholly inpermissible as the petitioner has duly proven his right to the said patta by tracing his possession from his predecessors-in-title and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
14. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions :-
i) M.Mumoorthy (Decd.) & Ors. – Vs – Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration & Ors. (W.P. No.26301/09 – Dated 08.03.2022);
ii) S.Lakshmi & Ors. – Vs – The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Survey & Settlement (W.P. No.21240/17 – Dated 18.12.2017);
iii) E.Syed Hussain & Ors. – Vs – Commissioner for Survey & Settlement & Ors. (W.P. No.16834/2016 – Dated 22.11.2017);
iv) Model Education Society – Vs – The Principal Commissioner, Survey & Settlement & Ors. (W.P. No.21238 & 33136/2014 – Dated 29.04.2016); and
v) P.Sharadha & Ors. – Vs – The Collector, Kancheepuram District & Anr. (W.P. No.14241/2016 – Dated 24.08.2021)
15. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submit that during the settlement, the lands measuring an extent of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 36.51 acres in S. No.310/1, 18.09 acres in 312/1, 2.32 acres in S. No.315/1, 7.00 acres in S. No.346/1 and 11.53 acres in S. No.347/1 were recorded as ‘Government Grazing Ground’ poramboke lands, which were later recorded as ‘Government Poramboke – Anadheenam’ by the Settlement Officer, Salem. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that during the UDR Scheme, the lands were retained as ‘Government Poramboke – Anadheenam Lands’.
16. It is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate that the 4th respondent, without any authority and jurisdiction had ordered patta u/s 11 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), on the basis of which the 5th respondent had transferred the lands in favour of one Sathyanaraya Reddy and made the necessary corrections in the Register and granted patta No.3456. Based on the aforesaid patta, the said Sathyanarayana Reddy sold certain portion of the lands to the petitioner herein.
10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
17. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the suo motu proceedings ordered by the 2nd respondent were initially stalled, but after the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.326/07 in and by which this Court had held that broad powers had been conferred on the Director and the Board of Revenue for correcting the mistakes committed by the lower authorities, the suo motu proceedings were revived and action was pursued u/s 5 (2) of the Act.
18. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that though the 2nd respondent, in the proceedings initiated suo motu, had held that the 4th respondent had no authority to grant ryotwari patta in respect of the lands, as he had no authority pursuant to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No.714, CT & RE Department dated 29.6.1987, however, has exercised his powers and granted the said patta. However, curiously the documents, which were taken note of by the 2nd respondent to hold that the predecessors-in-title of Sathyanarayana Reddy had title to the property and the same were held by them and, therefore, Sathyanaraya Reddy would be entitled to ryotwari patta, is totally erroneous as the documents which formed the basis of the grant of patta has not been spelt out. Further, it is submitted that the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 had sought clarification of the order passed by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement granting patta, by point out the errors in the said order, which has resulted in the initiation of suo motu proceedings by the 1st respondent.
19. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the 1st respondent had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner’s vendor had not placed any document to prove that the suit land is the property included in the holding of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner prior to 1.7.1945 and, therefore, the petitioner’s vendor has not fulfilled the condition laid down u/s 11 (a) of the Act. The 1st respondent has further pointed out that there has been no correlation of survey number and pimash number, which has not been dealt with by the 4th respondent, while granting the patta.
20. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the land records of the village Nemili shows that during Settlement a total extent of 75.47 acres in survey Nos.310/1, 312/1, 346/1 and 347/1 were recorded as ‘Government Grazing Ground Poramboke land’ and the ‘A’ register published during 1962 also records the said fact. It is the further submission that a 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 verification of the SLR of the village reveals that the Director of Survey and Settlement had dismissed the revision petitions in respect of S. No.346/1 and 347/1 in R.P. No.39/63. Only thereafter, vide proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Salem, the lands in S. No.346/1 and 347/1 were subdivided and recorded as ‘Government Assessed Waste Dry’. It is the further stand of the learned Government Advocate that all the land records show that the lands were not under the occupation of the predecessor-in-title of the vendor of the petitioner.
21. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that while the 2nd respondent rightly held that the 4th respondent has no power to grant patta in respect of a time-barred application, equally, by invoking his power u/s 5 (2), the 2nd respondent cannot grant patta on a time-barred application and the power is vested only with the 1st respondent u/s 7 (c) of the Act and the 1st respondent, by invoking the said powers, has rightly reviewed the orders of the 2nd respondent and set aside the patta granted, as the lands have been classified as ‘Government Grazing Ground Poramboke’ to which even grant of assignment is prohibited.
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
22. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that to protect the rights of the ryots over the land, time for appeal has been provided in the Act itself and further to safeguard the interests of the ryot, further time is provided by way of Government Orders, which has been finally brought to an end by G.O. Ms. No.714, CT & RE Department. The predecessors-in-title of the vendor of the petitioner nor the vendor of the petitioner having approached the 4th respondent within the time prescribed under the Act or even the extended time granted by virtue of very many Government Orders, cannot now come before this Court and claim ignorance of the appropriate authority who was vested with power to grant ryotwari patta. Further, for the sake of argument, without admitting the power of the 4th respondent to issue ryotwari patta, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that even the proceedings of the 4th respondent does not reveal the very many steps taken by the vendor of the petitioner to obtain patta and further the proceedings of the 4th respondent does not speak about the continuing right of the predecessors-in-title of the vendor of the petitioner to the subject lands and in the absence of proving the continuing right of the predecessors-in-title of the vendor of the petitioner, the grant of patta in favour of the vendor of the petitioner was wholly impermissible 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 and unsustainable, which has been rightly reviewed and set aside by the 1st respondent.
23. Insofar as the contention relating to the delegation of review by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the 1st respondent is stopped from initiating a suo motu review once over, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that only direction was issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to review the patta granted by the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent has not initiated any suo motu review and, therefore, the 1st respondent is not estopped from initiating a suo motu review of the order of the 2nd respondent, as the 1st respondent is vested with jurisdiction u/s 7 (c) of the Act to review the order passed by the 2nd respondent by initiating suo motu proceedings.
24. Further, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that no receipts with regard to payment of statutory dues have been produced by the vendor of the petitioner to show his continued possession and enjoyment, which are sine qua non for grant of ryotwari patta. In the absence of any document to 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 show continued possession and enjoyment by the vendor of the petitioner and neither the vendor of the petitioner nor the predecessors-in-title of the vendor of the petitioner having approached the appropriate authority for grant of ryotwari patta at the earliest point of time and within the time granted for applying for ryotwari patta, the act of the 1st respondent in cancelling the order passed by the 2nd respondent granting patta is wholly justified.
25. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the classification of the subject lands as ‘Grazing Ground Poramboke’ was made in 1962 during the settlement and since then no claim or objection has been made from any person, including the vendor of the petitioner. Therefore, in such a scenario, the grant of ryotwari patta vide the order dated 26.7.2000, passed by the 4th respondent almost after a passage of four decades, in the absence of proper proof of continued possession and enjoyment would go to show that the classification has been correctly made by the revenue authorities. Further, the reclassification as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ made in the year 1970 has also not been questioned by any person and the petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser cannot get any better right than the predecessor-in-title of his vendor or his 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 vendor and such being the case, the patta sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
26. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the act of the 2nd respondent in taking up review is more in the nature of an administrative act rather than a quasi-judicial act and, therefore, duty is cast on the 2nd respondent to obtain the records from the Tahsildar through the concerned District Collector and examine the same and pass orders. Merely because the 5th respondent has not submitted SF1 and SF7 and SLR ‘A’ Register, the 2nd respondent cannot pass orders granting patta in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands, which have been classified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ even as early as in the year 1970.
27. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that based on a court order obtained by the vendor of the petitioner, the said Sathayanaraya Reddy had applied to the 4th respondent for ryotwari patta u/s 11
(a) of the Act. The 4th respondent, without verifying the land records and without calling for an inspection report from the Tahsildar, had granted ryotwari patta u/s 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 11 (a) of the Act. No document to establish title having been produced by the vendor of the petitioner to establish his title or possession.
28. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that when the predecessor of the 2nd respondent had raised various queries with regard to the patta granted by the 4th respondent, which was addressed to the 1st respondent, without satisfying the said queries, the act of the 2nd respondent in granting patta on the ground that the revenue records have not been produced by the appropriate authority would clearly show that the 2nd respondent has not discharged his duties properly, which necessitated the initiation of suo motu proceedings by the 1st respondent and subsequent passing of the impugned order, which act cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the said order.
29. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
30. The subject lands, according to the petitioner, was purchased by one Govinda Krishna Reddiar in a court auction and, thereafter, the same devolved on the vendor of the petitioner through inheritance, which was thereafter purchased by the petitioner. To substantiate the same, the sale deed of the year 1936, which was executed in favour of one Govinda Krishna Reddiar has been filed.
31. The earliest proceeding relating to the classification of the lands is found in the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Salem, dated 30.06.1970. The said proceeding emanated on the basis of a claim for ryotwari patta for the lands under the provision of G.O. Ms. No.2502, Revenue dated 8.7.58 before the Board of Revenue (S.E.), Madras. The initial classification shown was that of ‘Grazing Ground Poramboke’ and pursuant to the detailed enquiry conducted by the Settlement Officer, Salem, the classification of the lands were corrected as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’. In the said proceedings, it is found that 9/32 shares belonged to one Radhakrishna Reddiar and Sathyanarayana Reddiar. The said order insofar as the vendor of the petitioner, wherein the lands have been 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 reclassified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ has not been challenged before the Board of Revenue.
32. However, out of the blue, the proceedings dated 26.7.2000 has been passed reclassifying the subject lands as ‘Ryotwari Punja’ and patta has been granted to the said Sathyanarayana Reddy. However, the said proceedings does not reveal the date on which the application has been submitted before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Further, a careful perusal of the said proceedings reveal that the vendor of the petitioner, viz., Sathyanarayana Reddy is stated to have given representation for grant of patta before the Assistant Settlement Officer, the Director of Survey and Settlement and also the District Collector during the years 1961, 1968 and 1976. But the date of the application of the said Sathyanarayana Reddy before the Assistant Settlement Officer is not stated.
33. Be that as it may. Even in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, patta, which has been granted in favour of certain other persons not under the Act, but under the Outside the Scope of the Abolition Act. In this backdrop, the ryotwari patta granted in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy assumes significance. 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
34. It is to be pointed out that the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 26.7.2000, in and by which ryotwari patta has been granted in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy does not reveal the documents, which formed the basis of the opinion for issuance of ryotwari patta to the 4th respondent. Further, the predecessors-in-title of Sathyanarayana Reddy, who have a right for claiming ryotwari patta has not been shown. Merely stating that the predecessors-in-title have not claimed ryotwari patta and that no objections have been made for grant of ryotwari patta to Sathyanarayana Reddy, the 4th respondent had directed reclassification of land and further granted patta in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy.
35. Review has been suo motu initiated by the 2nd respondent. Subsequent to the show cause notice and receipt of explanation, the proceedings have been drawn by the 2nd respondent after conduct of enquiry. The review has been initiated by the 2nd respondent by virtue of Section 5 of the Act and for better appreciation, the same is quoted hereunder :-
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 “4. Appointment and functions of Director of Settlements. - As soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, the Government shall appoint a Director o f Settlements to carry out Survey and Settlement operations in estates and introduce ryotwari settle- ment therein. The Director shall be subordinate to the Board of Revenue.
5. Appointment and functions of Settlement Officer. - (1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Government shall appoint one or more Settlement Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under this Act.
(2) Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal.” (Emphasis Supplied)
36. The Act has provided for appointment of Director of Settlements and Settlements Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under the Act. Grant of ryotwari patta has been provided u/s 11 of the Act and the same is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :-
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 “11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas. - Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of-
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and
(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the 1 st day of July 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land. Explanation. - No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section.”
37. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision, including the proviso thereto reveals that no person, who has been admitted into possession of any 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 land by the landholder on or after the 1st day of July, 1945, shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
38. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims purchase of the property in the during April, 2007 from one M.R.C.Reddy, who is alleged to have purchased the lands from Sathyanarayana Reddy during August, 2006. Though possession of the said lands is alleged to have come into possession of Sathyanarayana Reddy through inheritance from his father Nandakrishna Reddy, however, it is to be pointed out that no material whatsoever has been placed before this Court to show as to the basis on which the said lands have come into possession and when the said lands have come into possession of the said Nandakrishna Reddy. It is the case of the petitioner that Nandakrishna Reddy had inherited the property but from whom the said inheritance has come to Nandakrishna Reddy is not known. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said lands were purchased in Court auction by one Govindakrishna Reddy and the same was inherited by his brother Nandakrishna Reddy, however, no material connecting Govindakrishna Reddy and Nandakrishna Reddy is placed before this Court. Further, it is to be 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 pointed out that even in the earliest document of the year 1970, viz., the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Salem, when the lands were classified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’, the share of Sathyanarayana Reddy is shown to be 9/32 shares, however, there is no clarity with regard to the lands, which have fallen to the share of Sathyanarayana Reddy.
39. It is to be pointed out that the lands are alleged to have been notified vide G.O. Ms. No.2502, Revenue dated 8.7.1958, but neither Govindakrishna Reddy or for that matter, Nandakrishna Reddy who is alleged to have inherited the lands from Govindakrishna Reddy have claimed patta even after the notification of the aforesaid Government Order.
40. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that one Govindakrishna Reddy had purchased the subject lands in court auction, which was thereafter inherited by his brother, Nandakrishna Reddy, however, the court auction was in the year 1936 whereinafter, there is no material as to the demise of the said Govindakrishna Reddy and the devolution of lands upon his legal heirs. 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
41. Between 1936 and the year 2000, there is no connecting link between the subject lands and Nandakrishna Reddy, but for the averment of the petitioner in the affidavit. However, for the first time, an application is alleged to have been filed before the 4th respondent, which has resulted in the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy by changing the classification of land from ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ to ‘Ryotwari Punjai’.
42. As stated above, review was suo motu taken up by the 2nd respondent and in the said review, upon enquiry, the 2 nd respondent has rendered a finding that ryotwari patta had been granted to Sathyanarayana Reddy, by entertaining the application, which has been submitted beyond the period of limitation, as on and from the issuance of G.O. Ms. No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 29.6.1987, the 4th respondent has no power or authority to grant ryotwari patta. However, the 2nd respondent, while rendering the aforesaid finding, has gone ahead to issue the patta in favour of the said Sathyanarayana Reddy holding that the continuous occupation and enjoyment of the predecessors-in-title of Sathyanarayana Reddy has been proved. The said order has been passed invoking Section 5 (2) of the Act and granting patta u/s 11 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
(a) of the Act. However, the said invocation of power and grant of patta has been questioned by the 1st respondent through suo motu review, by exercising power u/s 7 (c) of the Act, which is assailed herein.
43. Therefore, it becomes necessary for this Court to find out whether the 2nd respondent is clothed with powers to go beyond G.O. Ms. No.714, CT & RE Department dated 29.6.1987, which has prescribed the cut off date. The power for suo motu review is drawn from Section 5 (2) of the Act by the 2 nd respondent, which has already been extracted supra. A careful perusal of Section 5 (2) reveals that power is vested with the Director of Settlements to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer. In this backdrop it is the stand of the petitioner that the Director of Settlements has the power to grant patta and G.O. Ms. No.714 would not be a bar for the exercise by the said authority.
44. However, it is the stand of the petitioner that the decision in Lakshmi’s case and Syed Hussain’s case (supra) would stand squarely attracted, wherein it 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 has been categorically held that the limitation would apply only in case of appeal and review and not for the original application.
45. It is to be pointed out that Section 5 (2) provides power on the 2nd respondent to cancel or revise any orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer only where such acts have arisen on the non-adhering of lawful instructions as may be issued. In the case on hand, it is borne out by record that even according to the petitioner, as early as in the year 1961, Sathyanarayana Reddy has made application for issuance of patta to the revenue authorities and such being the case, G.O. Ms. No.714, would act as a bar for issuance of any ryotwari patta on and from 29.6.1987. Such being the case, the order of the 4 th respondent itself being ex-facie illegal, rightly, the 2nd respondent has set aside the said order. However, the 2nd respondent, in view of the power u/s 5 (2) of the Act has gone on to enquire into the matter on review and granted the very same patta, inspite of the period of limitation for filing the application having lapsed more than a decade before. Section 5 (2) clothes the 2nd respondent only with powers of cancel or revise a proceeding, but when the 2nd respondent had cancelled the grant of patta ordered by the 4th respondent on the question of bar 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 of limitation, the order of the 2nd respondent is silent as to wherefrom he draws power to grant the very same relief. The revision power provided under Section 5 (2) would include the power to cancel the order passed by the 4th respondent for a procedural and legal flaw, but does not grant power to the 2nd respondent to grant the relief sought for before the 4th respondent, which has been taken away by G.O. Ms. No.714.
46. The abovesaid view of this Court would gain force from the Section 7
(b) as the Board of Revenue is vested with powers to issue instructions for the guidance of the Director, District Collectors, Settlement Officers and Managers of estates. If at all the 2nd respondent had felt that there existed a case in favour of the petitioner, the procedure would have been to have cancelled the patta issued by the 4th respondent on the ground of exceeding the mandate under G.O. Ms. No.714, and at the same time, seek for instruction and guidance from the Board or Revenue/Commissioner of Land Administration, which is the appropriate authority to give appropriate guidance to the 2nd respondent. Without resorting to the said procedure, invoking a power, which is not vested in the 2 nd 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 respondent, is wholly impermissible and unsustainable and it vitiates the patta granted in favour of the petitioner.
47. Pre-existing right of the predecessors-in-title to the petitioner has been claimed by the petitioner. However, to establish such a claim, first of all the title of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner to the property has to be established. Thereafter, the continued possession and enjoyment of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners by which they gain their right has to be established. Upon establishment, the ingredients of Section 3 (15) and (16) of the Tamil Nadu Estate Land Act requires to be fulfilled for grant of ryotwari patta.
48. In the case on hand, Govindakrishna Reddy is stated to have purchased the property in court auction in the year 1936. However, all of a sudden, in the year 2000, ryotwari patta is granted in favour of Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Nandakrishna Reddy and the claim made in this regard is that Nandakrishna Reddy is the brother of Govindakrishna Reddy. However, as stated above, no material whatsoever has been placed before this Court or before the authorities below to show the relationship between Govindakrishna Reddy and 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 Nandakrishna Reddy. In fact, the orders of the 4th respondent as well as the 2nd respondent is silent on this aspect. Nowhere in the said two orders, the drawal of title by Sathyanarayana Reddy has been discussed. Further, as stated above, no material is also placed to show the source from which Sathyanarayana Reddy obtained the property. Such being the case, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the pre-existing right of the predecessors-in-title of Sathyanarayana Reddy was assessed by the authorities to come to the conclusion that Sathyanarayana Reddy would get title and pre-existing right from one Govindakrishna Reddy, when in fact the relationship between the said two individuals has nowhere been discussed.
49. In this regard Section 11 (a) of the Act would assume significance and for better appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder :-
“11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas. - Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of-
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and
(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the 1 st day of July 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land. Explanation. - No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section.”
50. From the above, it is evident that where a person, who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the 1st day of July, 1945, shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land. In the case on hand, as already aforesaid, the link from 1936 to 2000 between the original landholder and Sathyanarayana Reddy has not been 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 established and even if the admittance of possession of Sathyanarayana Reddy is taken to be true, yet the continued possession of the said lands prior to 1 st July, 1945 by his predecessors-in-title has to be established only before the Government to claim the benefit of ryotwari patta. The Government alone is the competent authority to grant the said patta, as patta is claimed by Sathyanarayana Reddy, who alleges receiving the said property from his predecessors-in-title after 1st July, 1945 and, therefore, the grant of patta by the 2nd respondent is wholly impermissible as no authority is vested with the 2nd respondent to grant the said patta.
51. In the aforesaid backdrop, Government alone being the competent authority to decide on the question of issuance of patta to Sathyanarayana Reddy, as the said individual has come into possession of the property after 1st July, 1945, the question of applicability of G.O. Ms. No.714 would not arise. Further, the order of the 4th respondent draws reference to the applications filed by Sathyanarayana Reddy before the Settlement Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer as also the District Collector even as early as in the year 1960 to 1976. However, no such material is placed before this Court to show that such 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 applications have been made. Even if the said applications have been made, possession at the hands of the said Sathyanarayana Reddy prior to 1st July, 1945, becomes crucial so as to decide the authority to grant patta.
52. Further, one of the grounds raised by Sathyanarayana Reddy for not filing the application on an early date was the fact that he was residing at Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, he was not aware of the ryotwari proceedings. However, the said contention cannot be accepted and, in fact, liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the residing of Sathyanarayana Reddy outside the jurisdiction of the lands did not stop him from filing the alleged applications before the Assistant Settlement, Settlement Officer and also the District Collector between 1960 and 1976. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that his vendor was residing outside the jurisdiction of the authorities, and, hence could not file the application in time does not deserve acceptance. Further, no material whatsoever has been placed before this Court to show that Sathyanarayana Reddy was living outside the jurisdiction of the State. 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
53. In the aforesaid backdrop, without establishing the title, pre-existing right had been conferred on Sathyanarayana Reddy in respect of the subject lands, which has been gone into in a suo motu review by the 1st respondent by invocation of its power u/s 7 (c) of the Act.
54. It is the case of the petitioner that suo motu review has been directed to be undertaken by the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent, which resulted in the issuance of patta. That being the case, the 1st respondent is estopped from initiating suo motu review once again, as it would be nothing but a second review by the same authority, which is not provided u/s 7 (c) of the Act.
55. Section 7 (c) of the Act gives power of control to the Board of Revenue and for better appreciation, the same is quoted hereunder :-
“7. Power of control of the Board of Revenue.- The Board of Revenue shall have power –
(a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act Revenue. and in particular to superintend tht; taking over of estates and to make due arrangements for the interim administration thereof;
(b) to issue instruction for the guidance of the Director, District Collectors, Settlement Officers and managers of estates;35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017
(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of any Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Triburlal or of any manager ; and
(d) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Director. or of ally District Collector, including those passed, done or taken in the exercise of revisional powers.”
56. The aforesaid provision clothes the 1st respondent with power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of any Settlement Officer. There is no quarrel with the same. However, as stated above, the petitioner claims that it is a second suo motu review by the very authority, which is impermissible.
57. Though the contention, as aforesaid, is taken, however, it is evident from the materials available on record that the 1st respondent had only directed the 2nd respondent to take suo motu review u/s 5 (2) of the Act for the reasons stated in the said communication. Merely because the 1 st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to take review cannot be said to mean that the power u/s 7 (c) has been invoked by the 1st respondent ordering suo motu review. Further, it is to be pointed out that even if it is to be inferred that the 1st 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 respondent has directed initiation of suo motu review by the 2nd respondent, which power is available to the 2nd respondent u/s 5 (2), that would not preclude the 1st respondent from initiating suo motu review u/s 7 (c), as the act of the 1st respondent in initiating suo motu review is a quasi-judicial act, whereas the act of directing the 2nd respondent to initiate a suo motu review is an administrative act, which are two different acts, performed by the 1st respondent. That being the case, the mere fact that on the administrative side, the 1st respondent had directed the 2nd respondent to initiate suo motu review, would not bar the 1st respondent from initiating suo motu review u/s 7 (c) of the Act. Therefore, rightly, invoking the quasi-judicial powers, the 1st respondent has initiated the suo motu review and passed the impugned order, which cannot be called in question.
58. The whole genesis of the case revolves on the take over of the lands in Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village by the Government under the Act by issuance of G.O. Ms. No.2302 (Revenue) Dated 1.9.1951 in and by which the lands in the said village would stand vested with the Government, whereinafter, the landholders could claim ryotwari patta from the authority authorised for issuance 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 of the same. It is the stand of the petitioner that the subject lands are in Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village, which was taken over under the aforesaid Government Order, which was obtained by the petitioner on his request made under the Right to Information Act. However, this Court has given a careful perusal of the aforesaid Government Order, but is unable to find the said Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village having been taken over under the aforesaid Government Order. Further, neither the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nor the Government Advocate is able to point out the said village being part of the said Government Order. In the absence of the said village being notified as a village being taken over by the Government under the said Act, the grant of ryotwari patta with respect to the subject lands, which are alleged to be part of the said village cannot be granted by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has no authority to grant ryotwari patta in respect of lands, which does not come within the purview of the Act. In the case on hand, as aforesaid, Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village having not been notified as an Inam Village under G.O. Ms. No.2302, the 4th respondent would have no authority to grant the ryotwari patta. Such being the case, the order of the 2 nd respondent granting 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 ryotwari patta after cancelling the patta granted by the 4th respondent is wholly misconceived and unsustainable.
59. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P. No.14241/2016 in which one of the family member of Sathyanarayana Reddy, who owned land in S. No.310/1 was directed to be granted ryotwari patta, and submitted that the lands of Sathyanarayana Reddy, the vendor of the petitioner, also being adjacent to the said lands, was rightly granted ryotwari patta by the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the impugned order of the 1st respondent suffers the vice of arbitrariness and is therefore unsustainable.
60. Though the aforesaid contention is advanced, it is to be pointed out that the lands in Nemili-B (Beemanthangal) Village has not been notified as an Inam Village, as is evident from G.O. Ms. No.2302 (Revenue) dated 1.9.1951. However, the order in W.P. No.14241/16, which has been relied on by the petitioner has no where dealt with the power of the authority to grant the ryotwari patta nor the inclusion of the village as an Inam Village in the aforesaid 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.19757/2017 Government. The said decision cannot be made a precedent for the petitioner to claim ryotwari patta, as an erroneous order cannot be the basis for passing another erroneous order. Therefore, the decision in W.P. No.14241/16 would not in any way be beneficial to advance the case of the petitioner.
61. The 1st respondent has passed the order after taking into consideration all the materials and on the basis of the power vested in the 1st respondent. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned herein, passed by the 1st respondent, does not suffer the vice of illegality, arbitrariness or perversity and, therefore, does not warrant any interference.
62. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
06.09.2022
40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.19757/2017
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
GLN
41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.19757/2017
To
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary &
Commissioner of Land Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner
Of Survey & Settlement
Survey House, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
3. The Settlement Officer (North)
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5. The Tahsildar
Sriperumbudur
Kanchipuram District.
42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.19757/2017
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO.19757 OF 2017
Pronounced on
06.09.2022
43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis