Madras High Court
P.S.Seban vs The District Forest Officer R1 In ... on 3 January, 2018
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 27.10.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.01.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN S.T.A.Nos.3 of 2006, 2 to 5 of 2009, 1 to 5 of 2011 P.S.Seban .. Appellant in STA No.3/06 Koya Moideen Amina Katheeja Ayisha Imbichi Beevi Moosa Siddique [Above appellants are represented by Power of Attorney Markkar] Appellant in STA Marakkar .. Nos.2 & 3/09 P.Balagangadharan Nair (died) P.Valsala P.Rajani P.Radhika P.Rekha P.Ramesh Rajesh Appellants in STA Kunjutti Amma .. Nos.4 & 5/09 [All rep. by Power Agent P.S.Seban, Appellant in STA No.3 of 2006] Sasi Sundaram .. Appellant in STA No.1/11 Dr.Sivanand .. Appellant in STA No.2/11 Dr.L.Sundaram .. Appellant in STA No.3/11 M.P.Philip .. Appellant in STA No.4/11 Susamma Zachariah .. Appellant in STA No.5/11 Vs. The District Forest Officer R1 in STA.Nos. Gudalur Division 2, 4/09 Gudalur R3 in STA Nos.1, 2, The Nilgiris. .. 3, 4 & 5/11 The Assistant Settlement Officer R2 in STA Nos.2, 3, Dharapuram .. 4 & 5/09 The State of Tamil Nadu R1 in STA Nos.3/06, rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris. .. 3 & 5/09, 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5/11 The Settlement Officer (Gudalur Janmam Lands) R2 in STA Nos.3/06, Uthagamandalam .. 1 to 5/11 The Tahsildar R4 in STA Nos.1, 2, Gudalur. .. 3, 4 & 5/11 The Joint Receiver T.N. Godavarman, Thirumalpad Nilambur Kovilagam Milambur, Malappuram District R5 in STA Nos.1,2, Kerala. .. 3, 4 & 5/11 ----- STA No.3 of 2006 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 made in CMA No.13 of 2005, on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.2 of 2009 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 in CMA No.6 of 1999, on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.3 of 2009 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in CMA No.10 of 1999 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.4 of 2009 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969)against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in CMA No.5 of 1999, on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.5 of 2009 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969)against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in CMA No.12 of 1999, on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.1 of 2011 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011 made in CMA No.37 of 2008 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.2 of 2011 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011 made in CMA No.38 of 2008 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.3 of 2011 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011 made in CMA No.39 of 2008 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.4 of 2011 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 made in CMA No.40 of 2008 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. STA No.5 of 2011 filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 made in CMA No.41 of 2008 on the file of Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. ----- For Appellants in STA Nos.3/06 & Mr.M.Ravindran, S.C. 2 to 5/09 : For Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi For Appellants in STA Nos.1 to 5/11 : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Official Respondents : Mr.V.Ayyadurai Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Santhanaraman, Addl.G.P. ----- J U D G M E N T
HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J The above appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Court of District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the above appeals are as under:
The State Government, pursuant to the enactment of Janmam Lands (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, notified in the year 1974, took over an extent of 80087.74 acres from the Nilambur Kovilagam Family, a richest Janmi in Kerala. The appellants herein claimed patta on the ground that either they were lease holders or successors-in-interest. The Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta to some of the appellants and rejected patta to some of the appellants. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta to some of the appellants and confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in rejecting patta to some of the appellants. Hence, the appellants filed appeals before this Court and this Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed SLPs before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court permitted the appellants herein to file review before this Court. The Review Applications were taken up and after hearing both the parties, the Review Applications were allowed and consequently, the appeals are taken up for hearing.
4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants, which led to the rehearing of the appeal is that the claim of the appellants for the issue of patta, on the basis of the documents produced by them, was not considered either by the Assistant Settlement Officer or by the Tribunal nor by this Court.
5. Though in all the cases the claim is for the issue of patta, some cases stand on different footing with respect to the documents produced by them. Therefore, the appeals are dealt with individually and jointly, depending upon the documents and the claims made by the appellants.
STA Nos.3 of 20066. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer rejecting patta to the appellant in STA No.3 of 2006.
7. According to the appellant in STA No.3 of 2006, his father Sebastian was given lease of the land of an extent of 20 acres in S.No.46/1A in O Valley Village, Gudalur Taluk, by Prabhakaran Thamban, Jenmi of Nilambur Kovilagam, on 17.02.1960 and the said lease was renewed on 27.10.1966. On 27.10.1990, the father of the appellant executed settlement deed in of the lands of an extent of 15 acres in S.Nos.46B/1A1, A3, A1, in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, for the grant of patta. As no order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appellant filed a writ petition for grant of patta and the same was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed writ appeal, which was disposed of directing the Assistant Settlement Officer to consider the application of the appellant on merits and to pass orders. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was taken up by the Settlement Officer and an order was passed rejecting the claim of the appellant for grant of patta. Assailing the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal along with I.A. for appointment of Court Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeal and I.A. Hence, the appellant has come up with this appeal.
8. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and that he had made application for the grant of patta, but the same was not considered in view of the order of stay by the Supreme Court and that the claim of the appellant was based on the documents, which were not taken note of the Assistant Settlement Officer as well as the Tribunal.
9. The learned senior counsel contended that the Assistant Settlement Officer has erred in rejecting of the claim of the appellant for the grant of patta on the ground that only copy of the lease deed was produced, which was unregistered, without taking note of the fact that there are several decisions of the Apex Court laying down the ratio that unregistered documents can be relied upon for proving the factum of possession.
10. The learned senior counsel further contended that the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant was not a tenant under Section 9 of the Act, since the lease was granted for levelling the property by removing the overburden and growth with a view to carry on agriculture and to construct a house to store the products and not for raising plantation of the crops. But, the Assistant Settlement Officer has failed take note of the fact that though plantation crops were not there at the time of notification of the Act, the appellant cannot be denied patta, without taking note of the pattam receipts, adangal extracts, possession certificate, agricultural income tax officer proceedings etc. and therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of the Tribunal and the Assistant Settlement Officer.
11. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General contended that though the appellant has produced a copy of the lease deed, the same was unregistered one and therefore, it cannot be relied upon for proving that the appellant or his father was in possession of the land at the relevant point of time.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that though there are several decisions of the Supreme Court holding that unregistered documents can be relied upon for proving the factum of possession, the appellant has not proved his possession with other documents issued by the revenue authorities.
13. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that taking note of the fact that the land was cultivated with plantation crops, which will not attract Section 9, the Assistant Settlement Officer has rejected patta and the same was also confirmed by the Tribunal and therefore, he contended that the appellant is not entitled to the grant of patta.
14. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent.
15. After hearing the rival arguments advanced on the side of both sides, the short point that needs to be addressed by us is:
Whether the appellant has proved his plea of possession and enjoyment of the land in question and was cultivating the same at the relevant point of time?
16. On a close scrutinisation of various documents filed on behalf of the appellant in the typed set, it is seen that a lease deed dated 17.02.1960 is said to have been executed by T.N.Prabhakaran Thamban. On a perusal of the same, it appears that he has obtained a leasehold right orally from Thacharakavil Manadevan Thirumalpad in the year 1946. However, on a perusal of the said settlement deed, the same is found to be unregistered document.
17. Though two receipts, which are stated to be pattam receipts said to have been issued by T.N.Prabhakaran Thamban, found in the typed set, are in Malayalam language. The translated copy of one of the receipts was filed, in which, the name of the alleged lessor is mentioned as Sebastian Seviparai.
18. In the Adangal extract said to have been issued by the Village Karnam, Gudalur in the year 1975, which is available at page No.9 of the typed set, in the column relating to the name of the Pattadar or the name of the cultivator, it is mentioned as Nilambur Thirumalpad. However, the adangal extract, which is found at page No.10 of the typed set and counter signed by the Village Karnam, Gudalur, reflects the name of the Pattadar as Nilambur Kovilagam and not the name of the appellant, as claimed by him.
19. For the sake of argument, even assuming for a moment that the father of the appellant herein was given on lease the land in question, as per the pattam receipts as projected by him, then the name of the appellant ought to have been reflected in the Adangal extract as per the revenue rules. However, on the contrary, the name of the appellant was not found in the Adangal receipt. In view of the specific stand taken by the appellant herein and the absence of the entry of the appellant's name in the Adangal receipt, it is clear that neither the father of the appellant nor the appellant herein were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question at the time when the adangal extract was issued. Thus, the appellant has failed to substantiate his claim that his father was in possession of the land and cultivating the same at the relevant point of time, by documentary evidence and therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the pattam receipts produced by him lacks credibility and hence, the same cannot be looked into and cannot be relied upon.
20. A certificate issued by the Village Karnam on 10.10.1977 certifying that the father of the appellant was cultivating the lands in S.No.46B/1A1A3 by raising ginger, plantain and vegetables by constructing a house therein, is also filed in the typed set. If this certificate stating that the father of the appellant was cultivating the lands is admitted to be true, then the Village Karnam, who issued the said certificate ought to have entered the name of the appellant in the Adangal Extract issued by him on the same date. Therefore, it is clear that the certificate so issued by the Village Karnam cannot be relied upon to prove that the father of the appellant was cultivating the lands.
21. The proceedings of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Gudalur dated 28.3.1998 permitting the appellant to compound the agricultural income tax is also found in the typed set. Similar proceedings of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1998-99, 2004-05 are also filed in the typed set. These documents relate to the year 1998 and thereafter and moreover, they do not state anything as to the possession of the lands by the appellant during the relevant point of time. Therefore, these documents do not substantiate the claim of the appellant for grant of patta.
22. Further, some other documents found in the typed set filed by the appellant are receipts for payment of agricultural income tax and the same are also related to the year 1994-95, 1995-96, 2003-04 and therefore, these documents do not advance the case of the appellant to prove his plea of possession of the land at the time of coming into force of the Act.
23. That apart, though the appellant claim that he was cultivating the land during the crucial period and his claim for the grant of patta was not considered due to the order of stay, the appellant had not produced any document to prove that such claim was made either by the father of the appellant or by the appellant at the relevant point of time and therefore, in the absence of any iota of document in support of his contention, the same cannot be sustained.
24. In view of our discussions in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not let in sufficient documentary evidence to prove the plea that his father was in possession of the land in question and was cultivating at the relevant point of time and therefore, similar finding arrived at by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, in our opinion, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and accordingly, the same does not call for any interference.
25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
STA Nos.2 & 3 of 2009
26. The appellants in these appeals claim that they are the legal heirs of one Moyan. According to them, Moyan acquired right over the land in R.S.No.27/3, Padanthorai Village, Gudalur Taluk, by way of sale deed dated 20.10.1962 executed by one Krishnachetty. In the year 1940, the said Krishnachetty said to have entered into an oral lease with Thackkarakavil Manadevan Thirumalpad, who was the Raja of Nilambur Kovilagam. In the year 1991, one Pathuma, second wife of Moyan, came to know that the lands in R.S.No.27/3 were declared as Forest Poramboke in 1977. Therefore, she applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer for the grant of patta. But, the Assistant Settlement officer rejected her request on the ground that the land was a forest land. Hence, she appealed to the Director of Survey and Settlement, who remanded her case to the trial Court for fresh enquiry and set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer insofar as it relates to 54.26.0 Hectares. In the meantime, the Forest Settlement Officer issued a letter of memo to Pathuma, stating that she was in possession of the land in S.No.27 and it was vested with the Revenue Department. Therefore, the suit land was excluded from declaration as Forest. The Assistant Settlement Officer, after enquiry, granted patta to the appellants. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta to the appellants. Hence, the appellants have filed the above appeals challenging the order of the Tribunal.
27. According to Mr.M.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, only after verifying the documents filed by the appellants to prove that they were in possession of the lands in question and only after conducting enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta to the appellants and therefore, the possession of the lands in question by the appellants, which has been proved by them on the basis of the material documents, cannot be doubted by the Tribunal and therefore, the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order granting patta, which has been confirmed by this Court, has to be set aside.
28. The learned senior counsel contended that the land does not belong to Forest and it belong only to Revenue Department and therefore, the stand of the Tribunal in holding that the land belong to Forest Department and therefore, the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the grant of patta to the appellants on that ground has to be set aside.
29. The learned senior counsel also contended that the appellants were granted patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer since the lands in question belong to Revenue Department and therefore, there is no question of the District Collector or the District Forest Officer being aggrieved by such grant of patta and hence, the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the appeals filed by them.
30. Per contra, Mr.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General contended that though as contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants produced various documents before the Assistant Settlement Officer for proving that they were in possession of the lands in question, some of which are not related to the relevant period for proving their possession.
31. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the lands in question were described as Kadu Poramboke in the revenue records and also by the then Assistant Settlement Officer and therefore, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued patta to the appellants for the reasons best known to him and hence, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.
32. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the District Collector and the District Forest Officer are the aggrieved parties by the grant of patta to the appellants, since the land for which the appellants were granted patta belong to the Forest Department for which patta should not have been granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the appeals filed by the District Collector and the District Forest Officer ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal is baseless.
33. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides and also perused the documents available before us.
34. The main issue to be decided by us is whether the lands in question for which patta was granted to the appellants by the Assistant Settlement Officer belong to Revenue Department or Forest Department.
35. The appellants stake claim that their father Moyan was in possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of 112 acres in S.No.27/3 by virtue of sale deed dated 20.10.1962 executed by one Krishnan Chetty, who was said to be in possession by virtue of oral lease granted by Thatcharakavil Manadevan Thirumalpad of Nilambur Kovilagam in the year 1940. After the death of Moyan, according to the appellants, they inherited the property and were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, along with their mother Pathuma. But, the said Pathuma submitted application to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Coonoor, for the grant of patta only in the year 1991.
36. It is not in dispute that as per the notification in G.O.Ms.No.587, CT & RE dated 18.11.1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken over the Janmam Estate in Padanthorai Village, Gudalur Taluk, on 27.11.1974. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, conducted enquiry and declared the entire land of an extent of 504.26.0 hectares in S.No.27 as Forest Poramboke, on 15.3.1977. If the statement of the appellants that their father was in possession of the lands in question at that time, he ought to have appeared for the enquiry and substantiated that he was in possession of the lands in question. Even if he was not aware of the enquiry on the date on which it was conducted, he ought to have approached the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, thereafter and stake his claim. The failure on the part of Moyan or his wife or the appellants to approach the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, who had conducted enquiry and declared the lands in question as Forest Poramboke, would go against their claim that they were in possession of the lands in question at the relevant point of time.
37. The claim of the appellants for the issue of grant of patta in their favour is based on the letters issued by the Forest Settlement Officer I, Gudalur, directing the mother of the appellants to approach the Assistant Settlement Officer, Coonoor, for grant of patta. The Forest Settlement Officer, without taking note of the fact that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, has declared that the lands in question belong to Forest Poramboke in the year 1977 itself, issued a proceedings in July 1991, recommending to sub divide the lands in S.No.27 into three divisions and to declare two divisions, except one division which related to the lands in question, as Forest Porambake and to vest the rest one division with the Government. But, the act of the Forest Settlement Officer in recommending to vest the lands in question alone with the Government and to declare the other lands as Forest Poramboke, without taking note of the declaration made in the year 1977 that the lands in question belong to Forest Poramboke and without assigning any reason, cannot be justified.
38. After the declaration of the lands in question as Forest Poramboke in the year 1977 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, the Forest Department had not taken any steps to declare the said lands as Forest lands. Further, neither the District Forest Officer I, Gudalur nor the Director of Survey and Settlement had taken note of the fact that neither Moyan, the father of the appellants nor the mother or the appellants appeared for the enquiry or thereafter to stake their claim that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question for grant of patta in their favour. Thus, the lapses on the part of the Forest Department made the appellants to stake their claim that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question after a period of 16 years of declaration, which in our view, is not tenable.
39. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the observation made by this Court in a writ petition filed by Nilgiris Vivasayigal Sangam in W.P.No.22178 of 1993, in which the lands in question were the subject matter, wherein the mother of the appellants was the third respondent. It has been observed that the land in question was a Government land and was fully covered with forest growth with valuable trees and that the petitioners therein was not in occupation and enjoyment of the property and that the land was under the control of the Forest Department. Further, there were rival claims for the grant of patta with regard to the lands in question before this Court as well as before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, we are of the view that the claim of the appellants that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question does not seem to be valid.
40. A perusal of the documents produced by the appellants in support of their claim that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question would disclose that the sale deed which was said to be executed by one Krishnan Chetty in favour of Moyan, father of the appellants, in the year 1962, was an unregistered one. Assuming for a moment the execution of sale deed is true, though it was not registered, in normal course, a sale deed is expected to contain the signature of the executrix and the name and other details of the scribe. Bereft of such details would not enure to the benefit of the appellants.
41. That apart, the receipts said to be issued by the Revenue authorities and produced by the appellants contain only the signature of the Village Administrative Officer and not by any other revenue authorities. Further, in one of the documents, namely Adangal extract, the Village Administrative Officer himself had recorded that Kadu vested with Revenue Department which would mean that the lands in question is Kadu meaning that it belongs to Forest.
42. Moreover, it has been observed by the Tribunal that in the said Adangal extract, there were some manipulations made to the description of the land and that the said document related to the year 1995-1996 and therefore, even if it is taken that there were no manipulations, the appellants had not produced any other document except the sale deed to prove that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question at the relevant point of time, though some tax receipts have been produced, either it belonged to the year 1940 or of the year 1968, which contain no details about the father of the appellants.
43. The other documents stated to have been produced by the appellants for staking their claim that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question were not related to the relevant period and therefore, it is of no help to the appellants. Further, the letter of the Tahsildar, Gudalur, addressed to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Coonoor, dated 06.4.1998, would go to show that the appellants had obtained some certificates from the officer of the lower grade and not from concerned revenue officials and therefore, the said documents were not valid and requested to send those documents to him for taking necessary action. Thus, the appellants have produced only the documents said to be issued by the Village Administrative Officer in support of their claim that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.
44. Furthermore, during the field inspection conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, on 1.9.1998, it was found that coffee trees were planted only in some areas and rest of the areas, the jungle trees were planted by the forest officials and therefore, the land in dispute belong only to Forest Department and it was not under the possession and enjoyment of the father of the appellants.
45. We are thus satisfied, in view of the reasonings given in the preceding paragraphs, that the appellants have not proved that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question at the relevant point of time and that the Tribunal is right in setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta to the appellants. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the appellants.
46. In view of the fact that the issue to be decided related only to the facts, we feel that it is not necessary to refer to the various judgments referred to by both the parties, as it would be of no help for deciding the issue before us and therefore, we are not adverting to any of the decisions referred by both the parties.
47. The another contention raised by the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the appeals preferred by the District Collector and the District Forest Officer, is rejected. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
STA Nos.4 & 5 of 2009
48. The appellants 1 to 6 in the above appeals are the legal heirs of one Balagangadharan Nair. The seventh appellant is the mother of Balagangadharan Nair and represented by the appellant in STA No.3 of 2009.
49. The case of the appellants are as under:
Nilambur Kovilagam leased out O Valley Village of an extent of 12351.27 acres to O Valley Estates, in the year 1941. Thereafter, 1000 acres was surrendered to Nilambur Kovilagam in 1946. Nilambur Kovilagam leased out 200 acres of land to one Kannankutti Nair, who is the father of Balagangadharan Nair, on 08.6.1947. Subsequently, the lease was renewed by Kunhukuttan Thamban.
50. Manjushree Plantations, which was given on lease the land in O Valley Estate, filed W.P.No.2307 of 1975 before the High Court, challenging the validity of the Act 24 of 1969. The said writ petition was dismissed and therefore, they filed C.A.No.367 of 1977 before the Supreme Court and obtained stay on 15.02.1977 in CMP No.1229 of 1977. Balagangadharan Nair filed a clarification petition, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that whether any particular lands were leased out or not has to be determined by the appropriate forum. In view of the said clarification, the then Settlement Officer, who stated that lands in S.No.46B1A1A3/A of O Valley Village belong to Manjushree Plantations, took up the claim of Balagangadharan Nair for the grant of patta.
51. The Assistant Settlement Officer, thereafter, proceeded with the enquiry, based on the petition filed by Balagangadharan Nair on 19.01.1995, and by order dated 23.12.1998 granted patta to Balagangadharan Nair, rejecting the objection of Manjushree Plantations and District Forest Officer and also granted patta to Balagangadharan Nair in respect of the lands in S.No.468/1A1AC (Part).
52. Assailing the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the District Forest Officer and the District Collector filed independent appeals in CMA Nos.5 and 12 of 1999. The Tribunal, by order dated 04.6.2003, allowed the above appeals by setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed appeals and the same were remanded to the Tribunal, pursuant to which, the appeals were again taken up for hearing by the Tribunal. By order dated 25.02.2009, the Tribunal holding that Balagangadharan Nair had not proved that he was cultivating the lands during the relevant point of time and that the claim for the grant of patta was barred by limitation, dismissed the appeals. Hence, the appellants filed the above appeals.
53. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the father of Balagangadharan Nair, namely Kannankutti Nair, were holding the lease of the lands in question since 1947, and since then they were cultivating the lands, which would be evident from the lease deed and pattam receipts filed as exhibits before the Assistant Settlement Officer and only based on the said documents, the Assistant Settlement Officer had granted patta, that too after conducting enquiry and after satisfying that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating the lands.
54. The learned senior counsel further contended that the Tribunal, without taking note of the documents filed by the appellants, erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta was not proved by valid documents and also erred in holding that the claim was barred by limitation, ignoring the fact that though the claim was made at the earliest point of time, it was considered belatedly due to the blanket stay obtained by Manjushree Plantations who was also a leaseholder of a large extent of lands of Nilambur Kovilagam.
55. The learned senior counsel also contended that the stand of the respondents that the unregistered lease deeds are not admissible in evidence should have been rejected by the Tribunal, since it has been held in several decisions that unregistered lease deed can be let in as evidence for the purpose of proving the character of possession, particularly when those documents were of 30 years old, they have to be considered as true documents.
56. The learned senior counsel further contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the land belongs to forest as the question whether the land belongs to forest or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal and it can only be decided the Settlement Officer and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer may be confirmed.
57. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the lands in question vest with the Government from the appointed day, namely 27.11.1974 and therefore, the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta was rejected and therefore, the appellants cannot stake their claim for the grant of patta for the lands which were vested with the Government.
58. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that since the appellants were not in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, they could not produce any valid documents to show that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating the same and therefore, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta, which cannot be said to be erroneous.
59. Though the appellants claim that they have produced several documents to show that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating the same, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the documents so produced were not genuine documents and were said to be issued by a person who was not a Joint Receiver of the Interim Management Committee of Nilambur Kovilagam and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants.
60. The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that though it is not in dispute that the unregistered lease deed can be let in as evidence for the purpose of proving the character of possession, since the lease deed said to have been produced by the appellants was not executed by the Joint Receiver of the Interim Management Committee of Nilambur Kovilagam, the said lease deed cannot be said to be a valid document and thus, the Tribunal has held that the said deed is a fabricated one.
61. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the appellants had not submitted their application for the grant of patta within six months from the appointed date and only after the clarification given by the Supreme Court, they have submitted their application, which is beyond the period of six months and therefore, the claim of the appellants is barred by limitation, as the appellants cannot take advantage of the litigations pending before the High Court and Supreme Court filed by Manjushree Plantations.
62. The learned Additional Advocate General finally contended that the appellants cannot state that the Tribunal cannot render a finding as to whether the land is forest or not Tribunal, while the fact remains that the Tribunal, only taking note of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the District Forest Officer and the documents produced by them, held that the lands appears to belong to Forest and thus, he submitted that the appellants are not the lessees of Nilambur Kovilagam and therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of patta.
63. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the only point that has to be decided is whether the appellants proved that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and that they were cultivating the same at the relevant point of time, to arrive at a conclusion whether they are entitled to patta or not.
64. Admittedly, an extent of 12351.27 acres in Old S.No.46B/1A1A3 in O Valley Village was leased out to O Valley Estates 150 years prior to the passing of the Act and it was renewed on 17.11.1961 by the Nilambur Kovilagam Interim Management Committee. Manjushree Plantations Limited is the successor in interest of the O Valley Estates. Though according to the appellants, Manjushree Plantations had surrendered 1000 acres of land to Nilambur Kovilagam, no document has been filed to prove that Manjushree Foundation has surrendered 1000 acres to Nilambur Kovilagam. Further, the statements made by the District Forest Officer and the Tahsildar of Gudalur that the entire extent of 12351.27 acres in possession of Manjushree Plantations come under the purview of Section 17 of the Act cannot be lightly brushed aside.
65. In view of the above respective stand of the parties, now let us consider whether the appellants have proved their plea of possession, based on the lease deed said to have been executed by Nilambur Kovilagam, in the manner known to law. It is pertinent to note that it is a matter of record that Nilambur Kovilagam was represented by Nilambur Kovilagam Interim Management Committee. In the said Committee, Joint Receivers were appointed by the Sub Court, Kozhikode. However, it is seen that Kunhukuttan Thamban was never appointed as Receiver by the Sub Court, Kozhikode nor he represented the Interim Management Committee at any point of time. Therefore, assuming for a moment that the said Kunhukuttan Thamban renewed the lease deed on behalf of the Committee, as stated by the appellants, the same cannot be a valid one. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the said lease deed, based on which the appellants claim for the grant of patta, has to be treated as a fabricated one, as observed by the Tribunal.
66. Further, the appellants claim that they proved that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating the same by producing pattam receipts said to have been issued on behalf of the Nilambur Kovilagam. It appears that the said pattam receipts were stated to be issued by Kunhukuttan Thamban. When it was made clear that Kunhukuttan Thamban never represented the Nilambur Kovilagam as Receiver of the Nilambur Kovilagam Interim Management Committee, the receipts said to have been issued by him cannot be relied upon for proving the possession and enjoyment of the lands in question by the appellants.
67. Assuming without admitting that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question at the relevant point of time, in normal course, they ought to have submitted Form IV within six months from the appointed day, namely 27.11.1974. But, on perusal of the documents produced by the appellants, it is evident that the appellants had not submitted Form IV for the grant of patta in their favour. Thus, from the failure on the part of the appellants to do so, it could be derived that the appellants were not in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and therefore, they did not make such application on time.
68. Further, it is to be noted that the appellants have submitted their applications requesting grant of patta for 200 acres in S.No.46B/1A1A3, R.S.No.555 and 556, in Form No.IV only on 03.11.1998. Thus, it is made clear that the appellants were not in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question at the relevant point of time and therefore, their request for the grant of patta made on 03.11.1998 is rightly held to be barred by limitation.
69. Furthermore, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose, viz. to a limited extent of proving the possession. But, in the instant case, the execution of the lease deed itself is questionable as the Executor was never represented the Nilambur Kovilagam at any point of time. Moreover, in the said lease deed, neither the name of the scribe was mentioned nor the signature of the scribe was affixed, except the signature of the Executor. Therefore, the said lease deed, though unregistered, cannot be taken to be a valid document for proving the alleged possession and enjoyment of the lands in question by the appellant.
70. In view of the reasonings given in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants did not prove their possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and they were cultivating the said lands during the relevant point of time, but they had attempted to grab the lands by taking advantage of the pending litigations, as rightly held by the Tribunal.
71. Once it has been held that the appellants had not proved their possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, there is no necessity to deal with other contentions raised by the appellants.
72. That apart, though several decisions were relied upon by both the parties, since the issue involved is only to decide a question of fact, namely, whether the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question based on valid documents, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary to refer to those decisions, since on factual matrix, the appellants have miserably failed to prove their alleged possession in the manner known to law.
73. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal.
STA Nos.1 to 5 of 2011
74. The appellants herein claim that they are the lease holders of the land of an extent of 32 acres in S.No.202/B1, Gudalur Village. According to them, they purchased the leasehold rights from the predecessors-in-title and therefore, they submitted applications to the Settlement Officer, Gudalur, for the grant of patta during 1978, 1979 and 1999. In view of the order of stay, the Settlement Officer did not accept the applications of the appellants. Thereafter, in the year 1999, the appellants submitted their application for the grant of patta. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the order of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, the local authorities directed the appellants to vacate the premises, forcing the appellants to file writ petitions, which were disposed of with directions to the appellants to submit applications again for grant of patta. Accordingly, the appellants herein submitted their applications again on 04.7.2007. The Settlement Officer, after considering the documents filed by the appellants, counter filed by the Tahsildar of Gudalur and statement of the District Forest Officer, rejected the claim of the appellants. Hence, the appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.
75. Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question since they acquired leasehold right by way of registered deeds, from the predecessors-in-title, which would be evident from their application submitted to the Settlement Officer for grant of patta immediately after they acquired the leasehold right and therefore, the Settlement Officer has erred in rejecting the request of the appellants for grant of patta without considering the above aspect.
76. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer, without looking into the documents filed by the appellants for proving that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question from the date of their acquisition of leasehold rights and that the Tribunal, without taking note of the fact that the appellants had submitted their application as soon as they acquired the leasehold rights in the year 1979 itself and again they submitted application for the grant of patta only on the direction of the High Court, held that the claim of the appellants was barred by limitation and therefore, the order of the Tribunal, confirming the order of the Settlement Officer has to be set aside.
77. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Settlement Officer having issued patta to some of the persons who claimed that they acquired rights from the predecessor-in-title by name one AMHD Roza, has failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellants herein also derive title from the same person AMHD Roza and also failed to take note of the documents produced by the appellants, including the registered deeds, which would show as to how they derive title and therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer requires interference by this Court.
78. It is the final contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants would be highly prejudiced if they were denied patta, especially when other persons who acquired leasehold rights from AMHD Roza, from whom these appellants too derive title, were granted patta, even after the appellants having produced the registered deeds, revenue receipts and other correspondence which would show that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question much before the cut-off date and therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of the Tribunal and the Settlement Officer.
79. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General contended though the appellants claim patta on the ground that they derive leasehold rights by way of registered deeds said to have been executed by the predecessor-in-title, the averments made in the counter filed by the Tahsildar of Gudalur and by the District Forest Officer would make it clear that the appellants have not proved their possession and enjoyment by way of cultivation in the lands in question and therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of patta and accordingly, the Settlement Officer has rightly rejected the claim for the grant of patta in favour of the appellants.
80. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the application for the grant of patta ought to have been made by the concerned person before the competent authority within a period of six months from 27.11.1974, viz. the appointed day and however, the appellants having failed to apply for the grant of patta within the said period and staking claim nearly after three decades, are not entitled to claim patta and therefore, the claim of the appellants is barred by limitation and hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta is barred by limitation may not be interfered with.
81. The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that the appellants cannot stake a claim on par with other persons who were granted patta on the ground those persons also derive rights from a person from whom the appellants also derive title, when particularly the appellants failed to prove their possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and that they were also cultivating the lands in question and therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer cannot be found fault with.
82. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General are that since the appellants did not prove that they were cultivating the lands in question, with relevant documents issued by the Revenue authorities, they cannot be granted patta and therefore, the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Settlement Officer rejecting the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta, may not be interfered with.
83. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
84. The point that has to be decided now is whether the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating the lands in question at the relevant point of time and whether, they are entitled to ryotwari patta.
85. In this regard, it is necessary to look into the details as to how the appellants claim that they acquired leasehold rights from the predecessors-in-title. The Thirumalpad of Nilambur Kovilagam leased out 58.84 acres of land in Survey No.202/B1, Gudalur Village to AMHD Roza by way of registered lease deed in the year 1935. The said AMHD Roza transferred his leasehold rights with respect to 32 acres, to four persons by transfer deed dated 25.5.1951, one of whom is K.V.George. The said four persons partitioned the land of 32 acres among themselves and each took the leasehold rights over 8 acres. After the said K.V.George got further leasehold rights transferred in his name and he also transferred leasehold rights to N.C.Varghese and finally, he got leasehold rights for 16 acres and N.C.Varghese got leasehold rights for 16 acres. The said K.V.George transferred his leasehold rights to one Meherunnisa, who, in turn, transferred her rights to the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011. In the meantime, N.C.Varghese transferred his leasehold rights over 16 acres of land to one A.K.Mohammed, who transferred it to one M.P.Philip, who is the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011. The said M.P.Philip transferred his leasehold rights over 3 acres of land to one Sussamma Zachariah, who is the appellant in STA No.5 of 2011. Thus, the appellants derive leasehold rights from the predecessors-in-title, by way of registered sale deeds.
86. According to the appellants, while submitting their applications for the grant of patta, they have enclosed the copies of the registered deeds by which they derive leasehold rights over the lands in question and also other relevant documents. On perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, it is clear that the Settlement Officer, taking note of the counter statement filed by the Tahsildar of Gudalur and District Forest Officer stating that the appellants were neither tenants nor lessees of the lands in question, that they had not cultivated the lands for three agricultural years from 1966 to 1969, that the claim was barred by limitation, that the appellants failed to prove continuous cultivation of the lands, and that the claim of the appellants were already rejected and the same was not challenged in any forum, held that the appellants had not produced any official documents to prove that they were cultivating for a period of three fasli years and rejected the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta. However, it is pertinent to note that the Settlement Officer had not stated anything about the registered deeds filed by the appellants to substantiate their acquisition of leasehold rights and other related documents.
87. In view of the above, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant documents, relied on by the appellants, to prove that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, based on which they lay claim for patta.
88. The first document which we shall now refer is the proceedings of the Tahsildar of Gudalur Taluk, dated 27.6.1979, filed at page No.27 of the typed set, in and by which, the Tahsildar has ordered to substitute the names of the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 in the Chitta as joint tenants, by deleting the name of K.V.George, who transferred the leasehold rights to the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 and a copy of the said proceedings was marked to the Karnam of Gudalur Village and also to the appellants, for information.
89. The second document that we propose to refer to is also the proceedings of the Tahsildar of Gudalur, dated 10.5.1982, filed at page No.16 of the typed set, which is a certificate stated to be "ownership certificate" issued to the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011, certifying that the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011 is the owner of an extent of 16.00 acres of lands in S.No.202/B1, by virtue of possession and enjoyment (vide patta No.201).
90. The third document is the registered deed executed by the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011 to and in favour of the appellant in STA No.5 of 2011, filed at page No.18, wherein rights over 3 acres of land are transferred to the appellant in STA No.5 of 2011.
91. The next document is the Demand Notices issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Office of Gudalur, under Sub-section (5) of Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, at page Nos.37 and 42 of the typed set, calling upon the appellants herein to pay necessary agricultural income tax.
92. From a reading of the preceding four paragraphs, it is made clear that the appellants herein were in possession and enjoyment of the land and were also cultivating the lands. But, we wonder as to how the Tahsildar of Gudalur Taluk, who himself has admitted that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and therefore, directed to include their names and also issued ownership certificate, and having issued such proceedings and certificate, can turn around to file counter affidavits stating the appellants were neither tenants nor lessees nor they cultivated the lands in question. Therefore, the averments made in the counter, which was relied upon by the Settlement Officer for rejecting the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta, cannot be believed for deciding whether the appellants are entitled to the grant of patta.
93. The appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 have filed a copy of the Chitta for the fasli year 1389, filed at page No.30 of the typed set. A perusal of the same would show that the name of the appellants were found and the same were signed by Karnam of Gudalur on 17.9.1979, Revenue Inspector on 18.9.1979 and by the Tahsildar of Gudalur on 11.10.1979. Thus, it is apparent that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and that they were also cultivating the lands.
94. The proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Coimbatore, addressed to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur, wherein, it is stated that the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 had requested for patta as early as 18.6.1979 itself and therefore, he had called for a detailed report after conducting enquiry. Therefore, it is evident that the appellants had applied for the grant of patta at the relevant point of time and therefore, the subsequent submission of the application again, as per the direction of the High Court, cannot be termed to be barred one, as held by the Tribunal.
95. Besides, a perusal of Form (Rule 5), namely Form of the Certificate of Registration of Registered owner under Section 14 of the Coffee Market Expansion Act, 1942, filed at page No.36 of the typed set, would disclose that the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 were registered as the registered owner of the Coffee Estates as per the Schedule and it has been signed by the Collector of Nilgiris way back in the year 1979.
96. Furthermore, copy of the license issued by the Coffee Board on 21.11.1979, filed at page No.34 of the typed set, would make it clear that the appellant in STA No.3 of 2011 has been issued with licence and it was renewed up to August 31, 1984.
97. In the letter dated 25.6.1984 filed at page No.40 of the typed set, issued by the Senior Liaison Officer of Coffee Board Extension Wing, addressed to the appellants in STA Nos.1 to 3 of 2011, the Senior Liaison Officer had given suggestions, after his visit to the lands in question, to uproot the old Arabica Plants which were of 25 years and to plant Robusta Plants, whereby, it could safely be inferred that the coffee plantations of the appellants are more than 25 years on the date of inspection.
98. Similarly, the Senior Liaison Officer of Coffee Board Extension Wing also addressed a letter to the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011, filed at page No.17 of the typed set, after visiting the lands of the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011, giving suggestions to uproot the old Arabica Plants which were of 25 years and to plant Robusta Plants.
99. The evidence of one A.B.Ramaprasad, who was working as Senior Liaison Officer, Coffee Board, between 1984 and 1989, found at page No.77 of the typed set adduced before the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Udhagamandalam, discloses that the appellants were in possession of the lands in question and also were cultivating and replanted Robusta Coffee plants as recommended by Coffee Board assumes significance.
100. The evidence of one V.K.Bhaskaran, who was working as Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Gudalur, adduced before the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Udhagamandalam, filed at page No.67 of the typed set, also would disclose that he had inspected the lands in the year 1965, during which period the predecessors-in-title of the appellants were cultivating the lands and were remitting the taxes and thereafter, the appellant in STA No.4 of 2011 was also paying the tax.
101. Thus, from the documents referred to in the preceding eight paragraphs, would make it clear that lands in question were cultivated during the relevant point of time and that the appellants were in physical possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and therefore, in view of overwhelming evidence from independent witness and official witness from the Coffee Board and Revenue documents being available, as extracted above, the stand of the District Forest Officer, Gudalur, in his counter affidavit that the land was not a developed plantation during crucial period from 1966 to 1969, which was relied upon by the Settlement Officer while rejecting the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta, does not stand to reason.
102. The revenue records and the evidence of independent Coffee Board witnesses would go to show that the appellants were in possession and cultivation of the land even 25 to 30 years prior to the proceedings of the Coffee Board dated 25.6.1984 and hence, their possession much before the cut off date prescribed under the Act stands substantiated by the independent witnesses and the revenue records.
103. As regards the plea of limitation, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 9 of the Janman Lands (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, which reads as follows:
Section 9:
(1) Every tenant shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in his occupation:
Provided that such land is proved to have been cultivated by the tenant himself or by the members of his tarwad, tavazhi, illom or family or by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June 1969; Provided further that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a janmi on or after the 1st day of June 1961 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to aryotwari patta in respect of such land.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no tenant shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of any land under sub-section (1), if such tenant has voluntarily abandoned or relinquished his rights in respect of such land on or before the date of the decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 12.
104. A reading of the above would make it clear that patta can be granted to the lessees who were in possession and who were cultivating the lands for the preceding three years before 1st June 1969.
105. In the instant case, the appellants had applied for the grant of patta immediately after they acquired leasehold rights and there is no dispute about it. But, in view of an order of stay, the said applications were not considered by the authorities. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 18.8.1999 passed by the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.368-72 & 374-75 of 1977, the appellants in STA Nos.4 and 5 of 2011 submitted another application seeking grant of patta under the Act.
106. That apart, in W.P.Nos.22501 of 2007 etc. batch, a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 16.8.2007, directed the petitioners therein, including the appellants herein, to make proper applications in the prescribed format as per rules within a period of six weeks and also directed the respondents therein to consider those applications, along with other pending and the fresh ones, in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and in accordance with Section 9 or under Section 17 of the Act, after affording opportunity to the parties concerned. Therefore, the appellants had again submitted their application for the grant of patta.
107. In view of the fact that the appellants had again submitted their applications for the grant of patta, as per the direction of the High Court, it cannot be termed that the appellants had not applied for the grant of patta after long years and their claim is barred by limitation is unsustainable and thus, on the above factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the question of limitation does not arise.
108. However, on the contrary, it appears that the Tribunal, without taking note of the factual position, seems to have held that the claim of the appellants for the grant of patta is barred by limitation and was of the view that the Settlement Officer has no legal right to entertain such application after the period of six months. Further, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the documents filed by the appellants for proving that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question from the date of their acquisition of leasehold rights and thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in confirming the order of the Settlement Officer on the ground of limitation.
109. Furthermore, when the appellants had produced registered deeds to prove that they acquired leasehold rights from the predecessor-in-title, one AMHD Roza, we are at a loss to understand as to how the Settlement Officer had rejected the claim of the appellants for patta, while the same Settlement Officer had issued patta to similarly placed persons who also acquired leasehold rights from the same person from whom the appellants derive title, namely AMHD Roza, especially without assigning any valid reason. Therefore, we also found that the Tribunal has also failed to take note of this fact while confirming the order of the Settlement Officer.
110. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the above referred documents are suffice to prove the factum of appellants' possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and were cultivating too. Therefore, in view of presence of clinching evidence by way of documents, registered and official communications, we do not wish to refer to other documents relied upon by the appellants and we are of the firm view that the appellants stand on par with the persons who acquired leasehold rights from AMHD Roza and had been granted patta. Applying the said yardstick, we hold that the appellants are also entitled for the grant of patta.
111. Accordingly, in the light of the reasonings given in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal, confirming the order of the Settlement Officer, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal that were challenged in the above appeals are set aside. The appeals, namely STA Nos.1 to 5 of 2011, are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant patta to the appellants herein immediately. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
112. In fine, STA Nos.3 of 2006 and 2 to 5 of 2009 are dismissed and STA Nos.1 to 5 of 2011 are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes/No (H.G.R.J.) (T.K.R.J.)
Internet: Yes/No 03.01.2018.
kpl
To
1. The District Forest Officer
Gudalur Division
Gudalur, The Nilgiris.
2. The Assistant Settlement Officer
Dharapuram
3. The Collector
Nilgiris.
4. The Settlement Officer
(Gudalur Janmam Lands)
Uthagamandalam
5. The Tahsildar
Gudalur.
HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J,
and
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
kpl
Judgment in
S.T.A.Nos.3 of 2006,
2 to 5 of 2009, 1 to 5 of 2011.
03.01.2018.