Madras High Court
The District Collector vs R.Natesan on 1 November, 2018
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
W.A.(MD)Nos.1154 to 1159, 1160, 1161 to 1199 of 2015 and 1256 of
2017
and W.P.(MD)No.17223 of 2015
and connected miscellaneous petitions
W.A.(MD)No.1154 of 2015 :
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari Distriict,
Nagercoil.
2. The Sub Collector,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
3. The Tahsildar,
O/o.The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District at
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Neasamony Nagar Circle,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
R.Natesan .. Respondent/Petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in
***
2
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1154 of 2015 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 04.08.2014 made in W.P.(MD)No.
9060 of 2014.
For Appellants/Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmugananathan
in W.A.(MD)No.1154/2015 Special Government Pleader
For Respondent/Petitioner in : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
W.A.(MD)No.1154/2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.] The common issue involved in these writ appeals is the whether the orders passed by the Sub Collector, Nagercoil, in ROC No.B4/5788/2013, dated 12.05.2014, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are sustainable in the eye of law ?
2.The orders have been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 21(7)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Minor Inams Act”) [Originally Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963] modifying the names in the revenue records thereby reverting back the revenue records to the 1979 position in respect of 69 persons.
3.There are various survey numbers in Agasteeswaram Taluk, in Kanyakumari District, which are in dispute now. The lands in the said survey numbers were granted as personal inams to ancestors of one Velayutha Perumal Pillai by the Travancore King for the services rendered http://www.judis.nic.in 3 by them, namely, Arachar work (Hangman), that is, for execution of convicted criminals in Travancore State sentenced to death by the Travancore Government. A family belonging to a particular community of Nanjil Nadu worked as Arachars (Hangmen). Admittedly, the grant is for the service rendered. A copy of the said grant, which is in Malayalam language, pertains to the year 1901 has been produced in the typed-set of papers. All the original inamdars are no more. There were only a few of the legal heirs alive.
4.When the Minor Inams Act was introduced, there was proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nagercoil. The persons, who were in actual possession of those lands, appeared and participated in the enquiry. It is found during the said enquiry that originally Arachar services is performed by way of Marumakkathayam, that is to say, matrilineal succession by the sons of the eldest sister. Accordingly, Thirumalayandar, S/o.Thirunamamudayar was doing Arachar service and after his death one Velayutha Perumal Pillai, who is the son of the eldest sister Deivayanai Thanammal was doing the service. Hence, he requested that the patta be issued in his name. After verification with the original survey numbers and the re-survey numbers and also on payment of tax, ryotwari patta was issued in favour of Velayutha Perumal Pillai for the lands mentioned in the schedule under Section 11 read with 8 (1) of the Minor Inams Act, on condition that the Arachar service will be continued to be performed in Kerala State, as and when orders are issued in the matter by the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Government of Kerala. The said order was passed on 25.04.1967 in S.R. 8/66 MMI Act.
5.It appears that there was a suit in O.S.No.85 of 1988, which was filed by one Kamalam and three others against one Pitchaikara Pillai for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the Arachar land. However, the suit was dismissed. Later, it appears that the members of the Arachar families have compromised with each other and certain lands were sold by Pitchaikara Pillai to one branch and the remaining lands were sold by Velayutha Perumal Pillai to another branch of Arachar family.
6.It also appears that the said properties were purchased by the respondents/writ petitioners from the said Pitchaikara Pillai through registered sale deeds who was entitled to the subject lands, as they are the purchasers from the descendants of Arachar service inamdars. Now the fact remains that the respondents/writ petitioners were all alienees from the original Arachars. The respondents/writ petitioners are in possession of the lands from the date of purchase and pattas were also granted in their favour by the Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
7.As stated above, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nagercoil, at the time of ryotwari survey during 1967 had disposed of the Arachar lands as per the procedure contemplated under the Minor Inams Act. However, the second respondent, who is the Sub Collector, Nagercoil, found that the lands were with the persons not concerned with the said Arachar service http://www.judis.nic.in 5 and holding that the Arachar service inams are considered as minor inams as per Section 2(9)(iv) of the said Act, passed the impugned order dated 12.05.2014 cancelling the revenue pattas issued in favour of the purchasers from the original Arachars. The cancellation was based on the fact that the said lands vested in the Government after the service, for which they were given to the inamdars ceased to exist. Since the said lands are not alienable, as the inamdars will not have any proprietary right over the same, any sale by them in violation of the conditions vested with the lands will not confer title to the purchasers.
8.Challenging the said cancellation of patta, a batch of writ petitions were filed which were allowed by the learned Single Judge holding that the order of the Sub Collector, Nagercoil/second respondent therein is not in accordance with the Minor Inams Act. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeals were filed.
9.W.A.(MD)No.1256 of 2017 has been filed by a third party, who is an Advocate, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, after taking leave of the Court to file the appeal. It is his claim that there is no Arachar as on date and hence, the lands have to vest with the Government. He also stated that since the Arachar service was to be performed to the Travancore Kingdom in the State of Kerala and on that ground the lands were given by the Travancore Crown. Later, the lands became part of Tamil Nadu, in view of State Reorganization Act, 1956. Even the last Arachar, though had right in the land, did not have the right http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of alienation and therefore, the purchase from him by the respondents/ writ petitioners are without title. Hence, the appellant in this writ appeal prayed for allowing the appeal supporting the cause of the Government.
10.W.P.(MD)No.17223 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to transfer patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the vacant lands in certain survey numbers of Vadaserry Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring an extent of 10.58 acres. The said writ petition is tagged with these writ appeals, as per the order of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Bench.
11.The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to the purchase of the lands in the year 2011, he had requested for mutation of revenue records in his name, which was rejected by the fourth respondent – Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram. He preferred appeal to the Sub Collector, Nagercoil, who had passed the order in No.A5/5589/2011, dated 26.03.2012 directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 13.12.2012 to the District Revenue Officer, narrating the reasons for rejection of the patta marking a copy to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had again approached for transfer of patta, which was not considered on the ground that by virtue of the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Sub Collector, Nagercoil, mutations made in all the revenue records relating to Arachar lands have been cancelled. Based on the said proceedings, the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari, sent a communication dated 09.06.2014 to the petitioner, in which, it is stated that his request could not be considered. The said communication was put to challenge in W.P. (MD)No.13808 of 2014 by the petitioner. This Court relying upon the impugned order allowed the writ petition on 21.08.2014 and remanded back the matter and the petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 17.09.2014 to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, seeking patta. In spite of the same, he has not been given any patta. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the instant writ petition.
12.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official appellants made his submissions as follows :
(i) It is admitted that the lands in question are minor inams and were granted by the Travancore King for the service rendered called Arachar. Hence, they assume the character of service inam lands. It is contended that the present service inam is for the service rendered and not for the individual, in other words, it is not a personal service inam.
Hence, when it is not a personal service inam, lands are inalienable and any such alienation would render the same void ab initio. It is also contended further that as per Section 21 of the Minor Inams Act, it was open to any personal service inamdar to get himself discharged from the service by paying 20 times of the rental value of the land and such option ought to have been exercised within a period of six months as per Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the said Act. Once such option is exercised and http://www.judis.nic.in 8 payment is made and he is discharged from the service, it is open to him to deal with the property. However, in the instant case, the grant is for the service and not for the person as is evident from the document of the year 1901, which is a copy of the sovereign order of the King. The settlement patta alleged to have been granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer is only in the managerial capacity to the said Velayutha Perumal Pillai as Kartha of Karavadu Family. Nevertheless, the object behind the grant is only the service. The Sovereign had given the grant for the service to be rendered all along. According the learned Special Government Pleader, the person, who is rendering service is entitled to have the lands as long as he continues with the service and the grant was not intended to benefit the individual by giving the lands to him or to his family, in other words, it is contended that once there is no service rendered, the lands have to revert back to the grantor, namely, the sovereign King or the Government. The non-rendering of the service may be due to various reasons and in this case, admittedly, the said service (Arachar – Hangman) is withdrawn. Therefore, when there is no service, the grantee is not entitled to claim right to the property. The service holder is vested only with the possessory right and not with the title. When the service holder himself did not have any right over the property, no alienation is possible. The respondents/writ petitioners, who have purchased the properties from the person without title will not have any title conveyed to them as the transactions are all void. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
(ii) The next ground of attack by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the settlement patta is intact and only the revenue patta had been cancelled by the second respondent/Sub Collector. The settlement patta cannot be cancelled or intermeddled with, as per Section 21 and it is also admitted that there is a settlement patta in favour of the original service inamdars. However, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that once the service is incapable of being rendered, despite the settlement patta, the government has the power to resume the lands. Therefore, any such alienation made after the settlement patta and before the resumption are without title.
(iii) The third contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the service contemplated in the case on hand is to the State of Kerala. Originally, the lands in question were within the territory of Travancore of the State of Kerala and the service intended was for the said Kingdom. However, after the State Reorganization Act, 1956, the territory had been attached to the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, in the absence of the said service in Tamil Nadu, the lands have to only vest with the Government.
(iv) The next contention is that the impugned order was passed only after due service of notice to the individuals and that there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice.
(v) The learned Special Government Pleader also relied upon the civil court judgment, wherein, several alienees were party to the suit and http://www.judis.nic.in 10 the competent civil court has given a finding that the service inam lands were not alienable, such service holder do not have title and the settlement patta granted is only a proof of their possessory right and the said findings of the civil court has become final and it is binding on the respondents/writ petitioners.
(vi)Since these aspects were not considered by the writ Court, he seeks interference in the order of the writ Court.
13.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.(MD)Nos.1162, 1181, 1197 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P.No.17223 of 2015 contended that the lands in question are service inam lands recognizing the service of Arachars. Admittedly, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nagercoil, had issued ryotwari patta as early as on 25.04.1967, and in the interregnum of nearly about five decades, there had been large number of alienations, which resulted in fragmentation of the lands. Once the ryotwari patta is granted under Section 8(1) of the Minor Inams Act, Section 21 is inapplicable. As per Section 21 in so far as the service inams are concerned, as long as the service holder renders the service, he shall be entitled to occupy the lands in respect of which, he is granted patta under Section 8 and when the patta is also granted, the question of resuming the land after about 50 years is unacceptable. It is also argued that even as on the ground of equity, the respondents/writ petitioners have justifiable claim as they had developed the properties, put up residential buildings with their hard earned money. http://www.judis.nic.in 11
14.The learned counsel contended that the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.17223 of 2015 has the benefit of an order passed by this Court dated 21.08.2014 quashing the order of rejection of patta passed by the Tahsildar and this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner seeking patta afresh. Even thereafter, there is no action taken by the respondent stating that the matter is sub judice in the writ appeals. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled for the prayer sought for in the writ petition which was to issue patta in his favour.
15.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A. (MD)Nos.1154, 1156 to 1160, 1165 and 1178 of 2015, 30 in number, contended that the Arachar service is to be rendered only to the State of Kerala. The writ petitions were allowed holding that the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued ryotwari patta to the Arachars subject to the condition that the service would be continued. The discontinuance of the said service is not because of the grantee, but because of the withdrawal of the said service itself. The failure of the service is not wilful or deliberate and it is for the above said reason. Therefore, the cancellation, that too, after about 50 years is not justified. Learned counsel also submitted that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice has been served on the respondents/writ petitioners before passing the impugned order. It is his further contention that Section 21 of the Act is applicable only to the service holders rendering http://www.judis.nic.in 12 service to the religious, educational and charitable institutions and it is not applicable to Arachar service. Besides, when the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.1683 in and by which, permission was granted to change the said land from agricultural purpose to residential plots, based on which, more than 20 residential houses have been constructed in the said land, cancellation of patta at this stage is misconceived.
16.Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the grant was originally given by the Travancore King in the State of Kerala and not by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu is not the institution, which offered the service of Arachars. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta. The second ground is that in the absence of cancellation of ryotwari patta, the cancellation of the revenue patta is unsustainable. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice has been served on the respondents/writ petitioners before passing the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
17.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel contended that the earlier patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 25.04.1967 was after due enquiry, after issuing notice under Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965. The persons, who were rendering Arachar service were examined and after having satisfied with the fact that the Arachar service is being http://www.judis.nic.in 13 performed by way of Marumakkalvazhi, that is, succession by the son of the eldest sister, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued patta under Section 11 read with 8(1) of the Minor Inams Act. The said patta was issued on condition that the Arachar service will be continued to be performed in Kerala State as and when orders are issued in the matter by the Kerala Government. Admittedly Arachar services were withdrawn in the year 1970 and the settlement proceedings extended till 1979, and the impugned order has been passed cancelling the patta after nearly about five decades. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the said order is perfectly correct and the same has to be confirmed in these appeals.
18.Ms.J.Anandavalli, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. (MD)No.1256 of 2017 contended that there is no Arachar as on date and hence, the lands have to vest with the Government. It is contended that the notices were not affixed on the land, but they were sent to the pattadars and the actual pattadars did not appear for enquiry and the respondents/writ petitioners are not the pattadars and the question of sending of notice to them does not arise. The original Arachar service was to be performed to the Travancore Kingdom in the State of Kerala and on that ground the lands were given by the Travancore Crown, which had later become part of Tamil Nadu, in view of State Reorganization Act, 1956. The next ground was that Pitchaiya Pillai, who is the last Arachar, though had right for the land, did not have the right of alienation and http://www.judis.nic.in 14 therefore, the purchase from him by the respondents/writ petitioners are without title and hence, they are not entitled for any relief. Land Tenures in Kanyakumari District :
19.Kanyakumari District and the Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District which were later transferred to the Tamil Nadu State from the former State of Travancore-Cochin by the State Reorganization Act, 1956, had some peculiar land tenures, that were in existence. The Great Maharaja Marthanda Varma dedicated the entire state of Travancore to Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple and assumed its management as His Vassal (slave). Further, it was proclaimed that the diversion of revenue should be abolished by payment of compensation at 8/13 times the annual amount due to them just before the state reorganization by the transfer of Kanyakumar District and Sengottai Taluk in Tirunelveli District to Madras State. This was to bring uniform land tax structure. Agastheeswaram and Thovalai Taluks comprised vast plains of Nanjil Nad. The persons doing Arachar service were mainly from Nanjil Nadu. Travancore is the solitary State in India which did not suffer the onslaughts of Moguls or the British.
20.There were various land tenures mentioned - the origin, reasons and character of which are lost in the name of antiquity and are not traceable now. One such tenure is Pandaravaka.
Pandaravaka :
21.In this tenure, the lands are lands not being Jenmam, but http://www.judis.nic.in 15 belonging to the Government. Originally, the tenure was a form of lease without conferring any sort of right on the holders. But by the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME - 1865 AD, which was one of the earliest land reforms in the State, the holders were given full proprietary rights and the lands were declared heritable, saleable and otherwise transferable. The tenants became owners of lands, subject to payment of tax. Service Inams :
22.Yet another land tenure was of service inams. In the transferred territory, there were two types of service inams known as “service inams” and “karanma service inams”. The former was for such service as that of Executive, while the latter was for service of lighting lamps, making garlands for temples, etc. The category also tenure of land granted for post service or service to be rendered either to the State or to the community or to Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The said karanma service inam was replaced by Section 60 of the Travancore-Cochin H.R. Institutions Act, which Act itself was later repealed by the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Incorporated and Devasvoms Act, 1959 (Act 30 of 1959).
23.The Minor Inams Act which was extended to the transferred territory by the Amendment Act 33 of 1964 applies to these inams and also to any other inams that may exist there. Since they constitute grant of lands, the holders of such lands will be entitled to patta under Section 8(1) of the Minor Inams Act, while under section 21, the obligation to http://www.judis.nic.in 16 render service will be enforceable. Thus, the service inams has also been practicably abolished in the transferred territory and were brought under the ryotwari system.
Enfranchisement :
24.During Inam Commission Enquiry, the procedure for enfranchisement of inams was also adopted. Enfranchisement means the process of giving up revisionary right of the Crown in lands previously held on inam tenure, on payment of annual quit-rent and converting them into ordinary heritable and transferable property. When a personal inam is enfranchised by the imposition of quit-rent, the resumption consists of so much of assessment or melvaram as is equivalent to quit-rent, on neither the land nor the assessment were in excess of quit-rent resumed in this process. In the case of service inams also, it is open to the Government to substitute a money salary as a remuneration for the service and resume the inam in its entirety either melvaram or both melvaram or kudiwaram. The enfranchisement in this case consists of disannexing the inam from the office and imposing instead full assessment a quit-rent. It is equivalent to 5/8th of the full assessment. The enfranchisement is defined under Chapter III of Inam Commission Enquiry in “History of Land Revenue Settlement and Abolition of Intermediary Tenures in Tamil Nadu”, 1976 published by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
25.As a result of the proceedings of the inam commission, Madras http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Act 4 of 1962 was passed, which exempted enfranchised personal inam from the operation of the Regulation 4 of 1831 and declared that the title deed issued by the Inam Commissioner or authenticated extract from his register or that of the Collector was to be deemed sufficient proof of such enfranchisement.
26.The essential ingredients of an inam as evidence from these proceedings are : (i) that it is a grant or gift of the land or the revenue or both ; (ii) that the holding is the rent or tax free in whole or in part ; and
(iii) reversionary right of the inam vests with the Government, in exercise of which, it could resume the grant on the occurrence of certain events.
27.Whether the inam in question is a grant or gift or revenue or both has to be decided in the light of the grant originally granted by the Crown in the year 1901. It is relevant to extract the following portion from the copy of the said grant, which is in Malayalam language, now translated in Tamil, as found in the typed set of papers :
“//// Mur;rhh; fzf;F jpUkiyahz;lhd; jhQq
khiyag;bgUkhSf;Fk;. Mde;jj;jpw;Fk; kUkf;fshf
jhQqkhiyag; bgUkhs; Rg;gpukzpad; Kjyhd Ie;J
Mz;fisa[k;. MW bgz;fisa[k; 1076k; tUc&k; khrp khjk; 6k; njjp jj;Jhpik mtfhrpfs; Mf;Fk;bghGJ ,d;WKjy; re;jpud; R{hpad; cs;stiua[k; Muhr;rhh; gjtp rk;ke;jkhd ntiyfisf;
ftdpj;J t!;j;Jf;fs; Kjyhditfis mDgtpj;J ele;J
bfhs;sntz;Lk;/ //////”
28.As stated earlier, the provisions of the Minor Inams Act have been http://www.judis.nic.in extended to the transferred territory. The settlement was 18 commenced in September 1960 and completed in 1969-1970 by the Officers appointed for this purpose. In the transferred territory, there exists certain special tenures following customs peculiar to the erstwhile State of Travancore. The Arachar service is one of that kind. The abolition of this inams was attended to by the competent officer as part of the ryotwari settlement and the lands covered by this erstwhile tenure have also been brought under the settlement. Thus, in the proceedings dated 25.04.1967, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nagercoil, in the proceedings No.S.R.8/66 MMI Act, had issued the ryotwari patta in favour of Velayutha Perumal Pillai, S/o.Sathamparayaer Pillai, for the lands mentioned in the schedule under Section 11 read with Section 8(1) of the Minor Inams Act.
29.As per the above recital in granting inam, it is evident that in the present case the lands in dispute were granted as personal inam which is not resumable, that it is meant for the service of Arachar, which is abandoned or ceased as recorded in the report of Tahsildar in the year 1970. Evidently it is only The King of Travancore who offered the service. As the State of Tamil Nadu didn't have the said practice, there is no failure on the part of the vendors of the respondents.
30.The proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 25.4.1967 reads as follows:
“... therefore ryotwari patta will be in favour of Velayudha Perumal Pillai S/o.Satham Paraiyar Pillai for all the lands mentioned in the http://www.judis.nic.inschedule under section 11 r/w section 8(1) of the Madras Minor Inams 19 (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 subjected to the condition that the Arachar service continued to be performed as and when the orders are received in the matter by the Kerala Government”.
31.The said ryotwari patta issued in favour of the respondents was not cancelled till today and what is cancelled is only revenue patta. Hence it is argued that the impugned order passed by the Sub Collector, Nagercoil correcting and modifying the revenue records is completely without jurisdiction. As the ryotwari Patta granted under section 11 of the Act is not only a patta showing possession but is a document evidencing title which cannot be altered or modified by the authorities. Since the patta is issued under special statute by the special authorities, the District Collector lacks jurisdiction in modifying the same. Therefore, without cancelling the order granting ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appellants have got no powers to change the revenue record.
32.So far as the service for which the inam was granted is concerned, it is not related to education, religious or charitable institution.
As it relates to the service to the Government, the same is withdrawn making it impossible in performance. Admittedly, the Arachar service ceased to exist in the year 1970 and the settlement proceedings in State of Tamil Nadu commenced in the year 1967 and continued till 1978. The respondents are the subsequent purchasers from the family of original Arachars and the purchases were made in the year 2005.
33.The Sub Collector has passed the impugned order only based on two http://www.judis.nic.in representations made by third parties who are unconnected to the 20 issue. Even the service of notice or any process of enquiry before passing impugned order is not established by the appellants. The learned single Judge gave a finding that the affixture of notice was only on the land and therefore, the service of notice is not in the manner known to law. Further, there is also no explanation as to why no steps have been taken under section 21(7)(b) of the Act even though the Arachar service is withdrawn in the year 1970. Even though it is argued that there is no period of limitation in the statute for invoking section 21(7) of the Act, it should be a reasonable time within which the power should have been exercised. In the instant case, the ryotwari patta was issued in the year 1969 and the settlement proceedings were over in the year 1979 and the possession was continuous in the hands of the inamdar. The respondents have purchased the properties in dispute only in the year 2005. Therefore, reasonableness in invoking the provision is lacking and the impugned order passed by Sub Collector is vitiated on the ground of limitation also.
34.The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1256 of 2017 is only a whistle- blower and has got no interest in the property. The argument on behalf of the said appellant is that in O.S.No.85 of 1988, the Civil Court had given a finding that the patta standing in the name of Pichaikaran Pillai is void and they do not belong to the family of Arachars. However in A.S.No.25 of 2007, the parties had entered into compromise and an award was passed by this court in Lok Adalat on 22.2.2014. It is the contention of the said http://www.judis.nic.in 21 appellant that once the service has come to an end, the lands given as inam should revert to the Government. The writ petitioner who has no right, title or interest has filed the writ petition without any locus. He is unable to convince the Court as to how he is aggrieved. It is not for the writ petitioners to get into the shoes of the original inamdars and make a claim in the property.
35.When the ryotwari patta was granted in 1969 Arachar service was there. Therefore, the settlement patta was granted legally after due enquiry. Admittedly, the said service was withdrawn in 1970 by State of Kerala.
36.The Revenue Divisional Officer had initiated appropriate proceedings for resumption under Section 21 of the Act 30 of 1963, apart from cancelling the revenue patta and also proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act. The proceedings cancelling the revenue patta alone are challenged. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that neither the proceedings under Inam Act nor the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act are challenged and the same have become final. It is also to be noted that once the revenue patta issued to the writ petitioners are validated the question of challenge to the other proceedings become redundant.
37.Reliance was placed on by the learned Special Government Pleader to the decision reported in AIR 1922 Mad 197 (Neti Anjaneyalu Vs.Sri Venugopal Rice Mill (Limited). The relevant portion of the said http://www.judis.nic.in 22 decision is extracted hereunder:-
“....In my judgment, the sale of such property is opposed to the nature of the interested affected and also is contrary to public policy. The right to enjoy the property is as long as the inamdar renders services in the performance of which the public have an interest. If the inamdar sold the property, it is obvious that he would in all probability no longer perform the services; and further, it is quite opposed to the nature of his interest and duty, namely, that he should enjoy the produce of the land as salary for the public services he has to render that he should sell it or alienate it, leaving himself without the means of subsistance and without further interest in the place or in the performance of the services. It is also to be observed that, if the property were sold, the purchaser would get no title of any value, for at any moment the property might revert to the Zamindar or the Government, as the case may be, when the inamdar ceases to render such services. Further under Standing Order 54(1) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue the Government can resume possession of a charitable or religious inam immediately on alienation.” The said decision is not relevant in view of the fact that admittedly the service itself is withdrawn and settlement patta is already granted.
38.Admittedly, the purchasers of the properties obtained plan approval for putting up constructions. So far as the ryotwari patta issued is not set aside and it is only the revenue patta that has been set aside, the question of nullifying the subsequent transaction does not arise. It is only based on certain representation from persons who are not aggrieved, http://www.judis.nic.in the entire proceedings was initiated. The original inam is permanent and 23 the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 25.4.1967 also states that the Arachar service has to be continued to be performed only for the State of Kerala whenever orders are issued in the matter by Kerala Government. Even if that is considered to be a misconception, as long as there is no challenge to the same, the entire exercise taken by the appellants is arbitrary and unwarranted. Further, the said exercise itself is only based on the petition received by an individual on 16.12.2013 and as against the said individual several allegations were there including that he had promised to get free patta and collected several lakh of rupees from the public as registration fees. In fact on 12.12.1988, the Government has passed a G.O in M/S 1683 by which permission was accorded to change the lands from agriculture purpose to residential plots and more than 20 houses were already constructed and occupied. Hence, the cancellation of patta by the appellants is misconceived.
39.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
40. Consequently, W.P.(MD)No.17223 of 2015 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (T.K., J.)
gg 01.11.2018
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
T.KRISHNAVALLI, J.
gg
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
2. The Sub Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
3. The Tahsildar,
O/o.The Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District at
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Neasamony Nagar Circle,
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1154 to 1159,1160
1161 to 1199 of 2015 and 1256 of 2017
and W.P.(MD)No.17223 of 2015
and connected M.Ps.
http://www.judis.nic.in 01.11.2018