Madras High Court
E.Dhanapal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 September, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.20846 of 2022
1.E.Dhanapal
2.N.Poongothai
3.P.Krishnaveni
Represented by Power Agent
A.I.Sageer ... Appellants
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
Kancheepuram.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Alandur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
6.The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
St. Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram,
Chennai – 600 019. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 17.10.2022 in W.P.No.10423 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Krishnan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ganesh and Ganesh
For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.Ramanlaal
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R6 : Mr.C.Mohan &
Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
for M/s.King and Partridge
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.) The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17.10.2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants in W.P.No.10423 of 2013 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.99, Revenue LD-I(1) Department, dated 28.03.2013, and to direct the 5th respondent to carry out the changes in all Revenue records in favour of the appellants in respect of the property comprised in R.S.No.1455, G.L.R.S.No.363, St.Thomas Mount Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, admeasuring 1 Acre and 17,947 sq.ft., roughly around 25.6 Grounds.
2.The appellants herein claim that they are the co-owners of the property measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 17,947 sq.ft. in R.S.No.1455, G.L.R.S.No.363 at St.Thomas Mount Village, Alandur Taluk. It is stated by Page 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 the appellants that they have purchased the property and applied for patta jointly and their claim for patta was rejected by the order impugned in the writ petition by the 1st respondent.
3.The appellants trace their title to the property in the following manner :
(a) Originally, the property was owned by one Mrs.Susan Pembertan who had in turn had purchased it from one Mrs.Katheja Beevi Ammal.
(b) Susan Pembertan had borrowed a sum of Rs.300/- on 27.10.1902 by mortgaging the property in favour of one Krishnaswamy Chettiar.
The mortgagee filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 1904 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, and obtained a decree on 24.03.1904, directing the mortgagor Susan Pembertan to pay a sum of Rs.570/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Since the mortgagor Susan Pembertan could not pay the decreeted amount, she executed a sale deed dated 19.09.1905, conveying the property in question in favour of the decree holder namely Krishnaswamy Chettiar and his brother Govindaswamy Chettiar. The sale deed was in respect of a Bungalow Page 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 and the appurtenant land.
(c) Krishnaswamy Chettiar and his brother Govindaswamy Chettiar and their sons jointly conveyed the property in favour of one Captain Clemet George Taylor by a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1935, registered as Doc.No.1422 of 1935.
(d) Captain Clemet George Taylor mortgaged the land with one Oscar Harry Sheffield by way of registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.04.1936. After discharging the mortgage, Captain Clemet George Taylor sold the property to one Mrs.B.E.Montaut by sale deed dated 17.04.1946 which is registered as Doc.No.663 of 1946.
(e) Subsequently, B.E.Montaut sold the property in favour of an Advocate by name T.S.Swaminatha Iyer by sale deed dated 14.10.1946 which is registered as Doc.No.2101 of 1946.
(f) T.S.Swaminatha Iyer who purchased the property in 1946, applied for patta in the year 1968.
(g) On 10.06.1974, the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet, issued notice stating that the Government proposed to resume the entire land, since the land is a time expired lease land belongs to the Government. In Page 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 response to the notice, T.S.Swaminatha Iyer gave a representation on 11.06.1974 and later, submitted all the documents asserting that the land was never a leasehold land and requested the District Collector to grant patta for the land. The Special Tahsildar, after holding enquiry, opined that the lands are not leasehold lands and recommended for grant of patta.
(h) On 03.10.1974, T.S.Swaminatha Iyer died leaving behind his children as legal heirs, namely, T.S.Neela, T.S.Tara Manohar, T.S.Sailesan, T.S.Sabesan, T.S.Sathiabama and T.S.Lakshmi Samukdadas.
(i) One of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, namely T.S.Sabesan, filed a suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the Revenue Department. The said suit was dismissed as abated by judgment and decree in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 dated 31.03.1987, as the sole plaintiff T.S.Sabesan died.
(j) Subsequently, some of the other legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer conveyed the entire property (in “as is where” condition) by virtue of sale deeds registered vide Doc.Nos.4191 to 4193 of 1994 dated Page 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 15.12.1994 and sale deed which is registered as Doc.No.3149 of 1995 in favour of one Mrs.M.Dhanalakshmi and others.
(k) The purchaser of the property, namely M.Dhanalakshmi and others, appointed one Mr.E.Baskaran as Power of Attorney Agent by a registered deed dated 24.03.1995. Subsequently, E.Baskaran, acting as Power of Attorney Agent of M.Dhanalakshmi and others, sold the property to one R.Prabha by way of registered sale deed dated 23.02.1996 registered as Doc.No.3153 of 1996.
(l) The said R.Prabha, through her Power of Attorney Agent, conveyed the property to one Mr.C.Chokalingam by another sale deed dated 17.03.2004.
(m)Subsequently, all the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer along with C.Chokalingam and one Mrs.Alocius Mathaias and her family members conveyed the property to the appellants by way of registered documents bearing Doc.Nos.711, 712, 713, 738, 739, 756, 805 and 806 of 2004. By virtue of all the eight sale deeds, the appellants claim that they became the absolute owners of the property in question.
Page 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
4.One of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer died intestate as bachelor and hence, his shares are stated to be inherited by his sisters who also joined with others to execute the sale deed in favour of appellants.
5.Alocius Mathaias, who also joined in the execution of sale deed, earlier claimed patta on the strength of their possession under Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 27 of 1963). Though Alocius Mathaias earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.8597 of 1992 for grant of patta, the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Alocius Mathaias who was only claiming leasehold right.
6.It is the case of the appellants that, by virtue of their possession and enjoyment as per the sale deeds, they approached the respondents for grant of patta. The writ petitions filed by the appellants in W.P.Nos.21904 to 21906 of 2005 were disposed of by this Court with direction to the official Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 respondents to consider the claim of the appellants and to pass orders after giving them opportunity. Thereafter, the Tahsildar sent a report to the District Revenue Officer. Based on the report of District Revenue Officer (4th respondent herein) who had acted on the basis of other Revenue officials, the 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the appellants by proceedings dated 31.03.2006. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, by order dated 09.08.2006, rejected the further representation of the appellants for grant of patta.
7.Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the appellants preferred writ petitions in W.P.Nos.40021 to 40023 of 2006. Holding that the 1st respondent passed an order without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellants, the writ petitions were allowed by this Court by order dated 03.11.2006 and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent, who was also directed to give reasonable opportunity to the appellants and to consider the case on merits and in accordance with law.
8.After order of remand by this Court as aforesaid, the 1st respondent Page 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 directed the 3rd respondent to give a report as to whether the land in question is a private land or Poramboke land. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, after going through the entire records, issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants as to why their request for assignment of patta should not be rejected. Thereafter, the appellants filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20166 to 20168 of 2010 to quash the Show Cause Notice. This Court, by order dated 29.10.2010, directed the appellants to submit their reply within a period of four weeks. The official respondents in the writ petition were directed to dispose of the representation of the appellants within a period of four weeks after giving a personal hearing to the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants gave representation to the 1st respondent and attended the enquiry. Since there was delay in complying with the directions of this Court, the appellants issued a contempt notice and filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.559 of 2013. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the order in G.O.Ms.No.99, Revenue LD-I(1) Department, dated 28.03.2013, rejecting the claim of the appellants for grant of patta. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present writ petition in W.P.No.10423 of 2013.
Page 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
9.The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit and the 6 th respondent also filed an independent counter affidavit in the writ petition.
10.Learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the respective pleadings and the documents filed on either side, dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.10423 of 2013, holding that the petitioners failed to establish their title and the land which is subject matter of the writ petition is a Government Poramboke land. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioners.
11.Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents relied upon seven different paper books as a whole without arraying them chronologically, making it more inconvenient to the Court to get the facts in the chronological order.
12.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants made lengthy Page 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 arguments reiterating the grounds and submitted written submissions focussing the following points :
(a) The appellants have produced documents to prove their title from 1904 and that the old documents continuously for more than 100 years have not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
(b) No document has been produced by the Government to show that the disputed lands were owned by the Government or classified as Government Poramboke land, except the Resettlement Register in which the property is shown as Government Poramboke land.
(c) Insofar as the land in S.No.1455 is concerned which is the subject matter of this Appeal, it is admitted that there is no previous document to show any lease. In the absence of any lease deed, the proceedings of the then Government of Madras dated 05.08.1859 is relevant, as per which, a policy decision was taken to confer absolute title in favour of house owner or person who is enjoying the land for the purpose of construction of building.
(d) Without any prior records, the land cannot be treated as Government Poramboke land, especially when the Revenue Department had Page 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 decided to vest title in favour of persons in possession within Cantonment Limits earlier.
(e) Having regard to the admitted position that patta lands are also available within the Cantontment area, the stand taken by the Government that there is no private land in Cantonment area, is erroneous.
(f) Learned Senior Counsel referred to G.O.Ms.No.1363 dated 26.03.1974, appointing a Special Tahsildar to resume the lands in respect of time expired lease cases. Referring to the enquiry conducted by the Special Tahsildar specifically appointed to identify the lease expired cases for resumption and the report of the Special Tahsildar to the effect that there is no document to conclude that the property in R.S.No.1455 is a leasehold land as per the Resettlement Register, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the finding of the 1st respondent in the order impugned in the writ petition, is erroneous.
(g) Learned Senior Counsel then referred to instances where patta was granted in respect of cases which are also mentioned as miscellaneous lease cases.
Page 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
(h) In the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 26.05.2009, the Tahsildar has referred to the names of the persons, in favour of whom, patta has been issued in respect of different subdivisions of S.No.429 which is similar to RS.No.1455. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the appellants are also entitled to patta. Even assuming that the land in R.S.No.1455 is also one of the miscellaneous lease cases, stating that in the absence of any lease deed or any document produced by the Government prior to Resettlement Register to show the character of the entire land in Cantonment area, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 1st respondent has erroneously shifted the burden on the appellants to prove the character of the land as patta land owned by the predecessors-in-title by the appellants.
(i) Learned Senior Counsel then relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and others in Appeal (Civil) No.1971 of 2007 for the proposition that, entry in Revenue records does not confer title, as such records are prepared only for collection of land revenue.
Page 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
(j) Referring to some of the observations made by the Revenue officials during the course of enquiry, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Resettlement Register, which came into being in the year 1912, cannot be relied upon to show that the land had been classified as Poramboke land in the absence of any other document.
(k) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all the registered documents relied upon by the appellants are not disputed by the Government and the 1st respondent and the learned Single Judge of this Court failed to consider the continuous flow of title from 1905.
(l) The superstructure excluding the land was conveyed under sale deed vide Doc.No.4194 of 1994 in favour of Dhanalakshmi Ammal and 9 others and they had also reconveyed the same in favour of R.Prabha, who, in turn, has sold the same to C.Chokalingam as per sale deed in 2004 vide Doc.No.473 of 2004. Referring to the fact that one Alocius Mathaias and 8 others have also joined as parties to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have held that the Page 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 appellants and all their predecessors-in-interest were in absolute enjoyment of the property as owners and the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer rejecting the application filed by Alocius Mathaias and others seeking settlement patta under Act 27 of 1963 has no bearing.
(m)Referring to the fact that Alocius Mathaias and others were holding the property only as tenants under the legal heirs of Late T.S.Swaminatha Iyer who had purchased the property in the year 1946, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the findings against the tenants are not binding on the appellants.
(n) Learned Senior Counsel also tried to convince this Court that the assessment of quit rent is not conclusive to determine the character of land, as quit rent can be fixed for both leasehold and freehold lands.
(o) He also submitted that the Tahsildar, Tambaram, in his communication dated 29.01.2008, has vouched to the effect that no records are available in the office of Tahsildar, Tambaram, to show that quit rent was levied and collected for the subject land. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the findings of the learned Page 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 Single Judge in Para No.79 of the order is therefore erroneous.
(p) Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the question whether the land is a freehold land or leasehold land cannot be decided merely on the basis of the Resettlement Register which is not supported by any lease deed or rental receipt or other document showing receipt of rent for any piece of property in R.S.No.1455.
(q) Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that, in the absence of any rival claim, the respondents ought to have granted patta in favour of the appellants.
13.Finally, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants concluded his submissions by summarising the following points :
(a) From the flow of title from 1905 to 2004 and the subsequent documents for a continuous period of 112 years, the 1st respondent and the learned Judge ought to have held that the appellants are entitled to patta, especially when no fraud or illegality can be attributed to any of the documents or events that are reflected in the Page 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 documents.
(b) Several officers of Government including the Special Tahsildar, who was appointed to identify the lease expired cases, have recommended for grant of patta.
(c) Even the opinion of the learned Advocate General was ignored by the officials while holding that the disputed lands are Government Poramboke lands.
(d) The appellants are entitled to patta and the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
14.Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/Cantonment Board, produced before this Court the Extract from the General Land Register to show that the entire land in G.L.R.S.No.363, pertaining to R.S.No.1455, has been classified as “B-2” land. He also referred to the notification issued by the Ministry of Defence, dated 01.12.2021, framing Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021, and pointed out that Class “B-2” land is a land which is actually occupied or Page 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 used by or is under the control of any Department of a State Government. He also referred to the other relevant provisions. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent has brought to the notice of this Court a few aspects on facts to assist this Court. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court, in which one of us is a member, on few factual issues, and few other judgments, including the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Robert Zomawia Street reported in 2014 (6) SCC 707 for the proposition that, entries in General Land Register (GLR) maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title in the absence of any other documents to hold otherwise.
15.Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent referred to several proceedings at the instigation of persons as Power of Attorney Agents of the predecessors-in-interest of appellants. He submitted that several persons on the basis of successive Power of Attorney Deeds executed by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, have applied for patta over the period of time and the independent decisions of Revenue officials rejecting the claim for patta assigning valid reasons, had not been Page 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 challenged. The learned counsel therefore tried to impress this Court by pointing out that several persons made an attempt to convert the land as a patta land with the connivance of officials. He also pointed out that some of the Revenue officials without reference to admitted documents and contents thereof, have made recommendations for grant of patta ignoring that the property was never a patta land.
16.Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, relied upon the contents of few documents produced by the appellants and submitted that the predecessors-in-title of appellants have acknowledged the character of land as a land assessed to “quit rent”, which is normally collected from the persons who are enjoying Government poramboke lands. Learned Additional Advocate General then relied upon the elaborate counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of other respondents, referring to the subsequent proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Administration and the 1st respondent reiterating the position that the disputed land was always treated as a Government Poramboke land and the predecessors-in-interest of appellants were only in Page 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 permissive possession by paying quit rent. He also relied upon the judgment of Civil Court dismissing the suit filed by one of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer as abated and submitted that the suit was never restored and prosecuted further. Referring to the findings on facts by the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Revenue officials under different stages of previous proceedings, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that a vexatious claim has been made by the appellants as against the Government, despite specific findings on facts by Commissioner of Land Administration and other revenue officials rejecting the representation of several Power of Attorney Agents of the appellants' predecessors-in-interest.
17.This Court heard in length the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, as well Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 5, and Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/Cantonment Board.
18.This Court is proposed to consider the submissions made by the Page 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on the following points:
A) Continuous flow of title :
19.Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the documents produced on either side and the facts and events as seen from the documents in chronological order are enumerated as follows :
19.1.The earliest document produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is the proceedings of then Government of Madras, Revenue Department, dated 05.08.1859. This document only indicates the policy decision of the then Governor in Council to dispose of the land used or required for construction of building by outright sale instead of collecting quit rent. In case of land occupied wholly or in part by building on payment of quit rent, owners of the building are given an option of converting the land into freehold tenure by paying an amount of money equal to twenty times the yearly quit rent. It is stated that title deed would be given in favour of the person in possession subject to payments in order to confer absolute title. It is not the case of Page 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 appellants that their predecessors-in-title got title by an assignment or a deed as contemplated under this order.
19.2.It is evident from the extract of Suit Register that the suit in O.S.No.82 of 1904 was filed by one Krishnasami Chetty, S/o.Ethiraju Chetty against Mrs.S.Pemberton residing at St.Thomas Mount, Cantonment, for recovery of Rs.435/- due on a hypothecation bond executed by defendant to plaintiff on 27.10.1902 for Rs.300/- payable on demand with interest at 3% p.a. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.03.1904, directing payment, in default, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount by sale of the hypotheca.
19.3.It is to be noted that the first sale deed relied upon by the appellants dated 19.09.1905 was executed by the original owner Mrs.S.Pemberton, the judgment debtor, in favour of one Krishnasami Chetti and his brother, pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.82 of 1904 as aforesaid. This document refers to the fact that the property is assessed to “quit rent”. The vendor has also referred to her inability to pay the Page 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 municipal tax and the quit rent for the property which had been paid by the plaintiff as part of consideration. The vendor has further agreed that she would agree for transfer of municipal tax and quit rent tax in favour of the purchaser. The vendor has further agreed as follows :
“mg;go eP'f
; s; mDgtpf;Fk;nghJ jfhjhf;fs;
nehpLkhapd; ehd; Kd;dpd;W jPh;jJ
; f; bfhLf;f
flntdhft[k; ic& tPL kid tifawhf;fSf;Fk;
badf;Fk; bad;bgahpy; twg;gl;l Kdprpghypl;o thp
gpy;Yk;. Fapl;bud;l; thp gpy;Yk; c';fs; bgaUf;F
rh;ff
; hhpy; ehd; kD KjyhdJk; FLj;J bra;J
itf;f flntdhft[k; mg;go bra;aj; jtwpdhy;
eP'f
; ns kD KjyhdJk; bfhLj;J nkw;fz;l thp gpy;
KjyhdJk; c';fs; bgahpnyna bra;J bfhs;s
badf;F ahbjhU Ml;nrgKk; ,y;iy/”
19.4.The appellants have produced before this Court the Resettlement Register pertaining to the property in R.S.No.1455. The property has been classified as “Government Poramboke” as per Column 5 and 6 of the document. Even though the name of Krishnaswamy Chettiar is found in Column 13 under the heading “Pattadhar/Inamdhar” who is entitled to hold the lands, the nature of enjoyment of Krishnaswamy Chettiar by way of Page 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 miscellaneous lease, is admitted. In Column No.14, the following entry is found :
“No authority for amount previously paid (Rs.3-1-5) Temporarily charged quit rent at block rate.
Kd; brYj;jpa Jif (U:/3?1?5) f;F jFe;j Mjhuk;
fpilahJ/ g;shf; jPhi
; t tPjg;go jw;fhyk; Fapl;
; t tpjpf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ/”
buz;L jPhi
19.5.In the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, dated 20.12.1996, entries in A-Register has been referred to and such entry reads as follows :
“In the Village No.188, St. Thomas Mount (Cantonment) Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, in the Fasli 1320 (1910 year) the revision survey resettlement was settled and in the register against the survey No.1455, columns 5 and 6 it is mentioned as G.Pora (government poramboke) and in Column 11, it was mentioned as 1 acre and 1041 sq.ft. and in column 14, it was mentioned as cantonment poramboke.” As pointed out earlier, in all the title deeds, the original source of title is not referred to. It is very important to note that, none of the documents of title relied upon by the appellants refer to any ryotwari or Revenue patta issued Page 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants.
19.6.From the communication dated 10.04.1991 issued by the District Revenue Officer of Kancheepuram District to the Commissioner of Land Administration, it is seen that the property has been treated as land vest with the provincial Government in occupation or having control over the lands.
In the same proceedings, out of 36 cases of time expired lease cases which are classified as “B-2” lands, final orders have been passed by the Government in respect of 16 cases including the lands in R.S.No.1455. It is stated that the Government, by their proceedings dated 29.09.1981, directed to treat the occupation of the persons in all these cases, including the persons in occupation of R.S.No.1455, as encroachers. The fact that eviction proceedings had been initiated against the land owners under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, is referred to. It is further stated that the occupants in respect of S.No.1455 had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.
19.7.Even though in the above communication it is stated that the Page 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 said suit is pending, it is now admitted that the said suit is dismissed as abated. However, the legal heirs of the plaintiff in the said suit failed to prosecute the suit further. This Court is unable to see any independent writ petition or suit filed by others challenging such eviction proceedings. Therefore, the order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act has become final.
19.8.It is pertinent to mention about the sale executed by the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer in respect of leasehold right over the property by way of different sale deeds dated 15.12.1994, registered as Doc.Nos.4191 to 4194 of 1994. It is stated that the property conveyed under the sale deeds is only the building excluding the land. In the Schedule of property in every sale deed, it is mentioned as 1/5th of undivided share of leasehold right in all that piece and parcel of the land, house and premises commonly known as “MONTLYN” comprised in G.L.R.S.No.363 (corresponding to R.S.No.1455). The contents as seen from body of the document is different from the description of the property conveyed as per the Schedule. It appears that the vendors, knowing that an Page 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 individual cannot execute a sale deed in respect of Government Poramboke land, have cautiously mentioned that the transfer under the document is only the leasehold right in respect of the building excluding the land. The Schedule reads as follows :
“SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY : 1/5th UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT IN ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF THE LAND HOUSE and premises commonly known as “MONTLYN” comprised in G.L.R.S.No.363, bearing present Door No.16, Cantonment Lane, G.S.T. Road, St.Thomas Mount, Madras – 600 016, situated in Survey No.1455 of St. Thomas Mount Village of an extent of 1.17 Acres and the property being situated within the Cantonment area of St. Thomas Mount Bounded on the : North by R.S.No.1456, West By : Cantonment Lane, South By : Cantonment Land used as Foot Ball Ground and Mortuary, East By : Cantonment Land and situated within the Registration District of South Madras and Sub Registration District of Alandur. Market Value of the property is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).” 19.9.The contents of all the documents registered as Doc.Nos.4191 to 4194 of 1994, is relevant, and this will expose the fact that the Page 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 predecessors-in-interest of the appellants have created successive registered documents creating right in favour of several individuals, so that, for the same property, different persons can claim patta based on either a leasehold right in respect of the building or by assuming proprietary right over the land or a residual or derivative right created for the purpose of enabling the successors to claim some right, which is quite contrary to the recitals of the documents. The recitals of the 5 Sale Deeds dated 15.12.1994, executed by legal heirs of Mr.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer reads as follows :
“WHEREAS as one of the five legal heirs of the said Late Mr.T.S.SWAMINATHA Iyer, the FIRST PARTY herein has one- fifth Undivided share and interests on the Lease Hold Rights and whatsoever rights interest or title the late Mr.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer in the Schedule mentioned property. WHEREAS one Mr.Mathoas was the tenant of the house situated in the afore mentioned property and after his death in the year 1973 his wife Mrs.Mathias and their son Mr.Allocious continued to be the tenant. After some times for default of rent one of the legal heirs, of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, filed R.C.O.P.No.186/77 under section 10(i) and 14(i) of the T.B.Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18/60). Subsequently the said Mrs.Mathias filed R.C.O.P.No.170 of Page 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 1980 against the legal heirs of late T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. Moreover Patta has not been issued to the owners as the Government of Tamilnadu claimed this to be their time expired lease land Yet in 1992 the tenant Mrs.A.Mathias and eight others filed W.P.No.8597/92 against the Revenue authorities and Survey and Land Records authorities for the Writ of Mandamus for granting Patta in their favour. The above writ was disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners on merits and dispose of the petition of the said A.Mathias. Therefore the Legal heirs, of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer sent several objection petition of the Telegram to the authorities stating that the property belongs to the legal heirs of the Late T.S.Swaminatha Iyer and none else can claim patta in respect of the said property. Hence, there is a full in the matter. WHEREAS the purchaser herein states that they will settle the dispute and discharges the litigation and other problems inclusive of obtaining vacant possession by their own efforts, costs and risks relieving the vendor from all known as well as unforeseen liabilities on their part. The Purchasers agreed to purchase the Lease Hold Rights of the Schedule mentioned property on is where is basis. WHEREAS All the relevant documents including the demand notices received from cantonment Authority and copies of correspondence between the Revenue Page 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 Authorities regarding patta were made available to the Purchasers and after perusing the same and knowing fully well the clouds attached to the title of the Schedule mentioned property the purchasers have come forward to purchase the same on an “As is where is basis”. WHEREAS the PURCHASER herein are well aware of the cloud attached to the title touching the schedule mentioned property and perfect the title by obtaining patta from the revenue authority and making appropriate and necessary arrangements with the interested parties. WHEREAS all the relevant documents touching the title of the schedule mentioned property available with the Vendor including the tax demand notices received from the cantonment authority were perused by the Purchasers and their counsel and they were satisfied with the title, rights, and interest of the Vendors over the schedule mentioned property. WHEREAS the Parties herein have mutually and expressly agreed that the vendor incur liability to the purchaser or to the interested parties for any issue arising by these presents. Since this transfer of title is a distress sale the Vendor has agreed to convey her residual Lease Hold Rights, at a reduced price and the total consideration for the Schedule mentioned property is determined at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupess One Lakh only). NOW THIS DEED OF SALE OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT WITNESSETH 1. That in pursuance of whatso Page 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 stated above and in consideration of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) paid by the Purchasers to the Vendors the receipt of which the Vendors hereby admit, acknowledges and release the Purchasers from further payment, the vendor hereby convey grant, sell, transfers and assign unto the Purchasers his Lease Hold Right and interest whatsoever in the Schedule mentioned property. 2.That the Vendor this day hands over all the available documents relating to the schedule mentioned property to the purchasers. 3. That the Purchasers hereby express that no liability be incurred to the Vendor or any other persons arising from this sale transaction by these presents and schedule mentioned property is sold and purchased on an 'AS IS WHERE IS BASIS'. 4. The property hereby conveyed is only the building excluding land.” 19.10.However, in the Schedule of property, it is mentioned as ''1/5th undivided share of leasehold right in all that piece and parcel of the land, house and premises commonly known as ''MUNTLYN comprised in...''.
19.11.Even in the above documents, the right of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer is described in the following language :
Page 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 “WHEREAS as one of the five legal heirs of the said Late Mr.T.S.SWAMINATHA Iyer, the FIRST PARTY herein has one- fifth Undivided share and interests on the Lease Hold Rights and whatsoever rights interest or title the late Mr.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer in the Schedule mentioned property.
20.When the candid admission from the contents of these documents was pointed out to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, he was unable to explain the context in which the documents were executed by selling only the leasehold right of vendors. The recitals of these five Sale Deeds conveying only leasehold rights is contrary to the present claim based on title.
21.It is seen from the proceedings dated 25.07.1996 of Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, that Mrs.Alocius Mathaias and 7 others, based on the directions of this Court in W.P.No.8533 of 1992, filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta under Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 27 of 1963). The said application was dismissed on the simple ground that the property in Page 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 St.Thomas Mount is not shown in the First Schedule to the Act. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was confirmed by the order of Settlement Officer dated 20.12.1996. Thereafter, Mrs.Alocius Mathaias and 7 others filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Administration. It is admitted that the persons who claimed right on the basis of tenancy rights under T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, have not prosecuted further and no one has brought to the notice of this Court about any other proceedings that is pending at the instance of erstwhile lessees claiming ryotwari patta. First of all, Act 27 of 1963 was enacted for the termination of certain lease granted by Government in specific villages enumerated in the First Schedule to Act 27 of 1963. Under Act 27 of 1963, every ryot or a lessee who had a permanent right of occupancy or a person who is cultivating the land continuously for a period of more that 12 years immediately before the Act, is entitled to ryotwari patta.
22.It is surprising to note that legal heirs of Thiru.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer filed RCOP No.186/1977 for eviction on the ground of demolition and Page 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 reconstruction and the wife of tenant filed RCOP No.170/1980 against legal heirs of late Thiru.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. The person who claimed independent title later has also joined in the execution of sale in favour of the appellants. It is pertinent to mention that the tenant made an attempt to get ryotwari patta as a transferree of leasehold right under Government. The appellants have now come forward with a different case claiming proprietary right over the land knowing very well that the property is a Government poramboke and that their predecessors-in-interest were unsuccessful in establishing their independent title against Government.
23.It is brought to our notice the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.557 dated 07.03.1994 issuing directions to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration to take action for resumption of lands which were directed to be resumed by earlier orders. Even though this Government Order was relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court is unable to find anything in favour of the appellants, as the direction therein was to consider grant of patta in respect of time expired lease cases pertains to S.No.435.
Page 35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
24.It is very interesting to note that, in a representation of the appellants through their Power of Attorney Agent by name C.Chockalingam, which is found in Page No.63 of Volume-II of Typed Set of Papers filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have mentioned that Dhanalakshmi and others have purchased the superstructure along with leasehold rights as enumerated from the rightful owners and legal heirs of late T.S.Swaminatha Iyer by registered sale deed by Doc.No.4191 of 1996.
25.Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to some of the recommendations of the Special Tahsildar in 1974, this Court is able to see from all the documents that the Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collector have consistently rejected the claim of appellants for grant of patta on earlier occasion. Despite the recommendation of the Tahsildar earlier on 04.07.1974 and subsequently on 16.06.2004 recommending for grant of patta, the Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collector, in all their previous proceedings, Page 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 pointed out that the appellants' claim, solely on the basis of sale deeds from 1905, cannot be accepted and that they should be treated as encroachers having regard to the classification of the land and the nature of documents between the parties. Even by proceedings dated 10.04.1991, the District Revenue Officer in his report has referred to the Government Order dated 29.09.1981, wherein a specific direction was issued to treat the occupation in S.No.1455 as encroachment and to evict the encroachers. After preliminary notice under Section 7, a final order under Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act was issued to the legal heirs of late Thiru.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer on 22.10.1982. The suit filed by one of the legal heirs of Thiru.T.S.Swaminatha Iyer in OS.No.1499/1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee was dismissed as abated. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior counsel for appellants that appellants have established their independent title by documents from 1905 is not only devoid of any merits but contrary to the documents produced by the appellants before this Court.
26.Learned Senior Counsel has reiterated that the appellants are Page 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 entitled to claim title irrespective of the original character of the land in view of the continuous enjoyment of the property by the appellants and their predecessors-in-interest from the year 1905. In other words, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is continuous flow of title from 1905 till date and such an important factor cannot be ignored. This Court finds no substance in such an argument. This Court has already seen that the earliest document relied upon by the appellants, i.e., the sale deed in 1905, gives a clear indication that the transfer of right by the vendor of the document is by accepting the paramount title of the Government. Even though there is no reference to the word “quit rent” in subsequent documents, it is admitted that no patta was issued to anyone who purchased the property in 1905 or thereafter. Even in 1994, the predecessor-in-interest of appellants had conveyed only the leasehold right.
27.Secondly, the learned Senior Counsel, quite contrary to the contents of the documents, came with a story that, one R.J.Mathaias was holding the property as a tenant of legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. However, no document of lease is produced or stated by anyone. The legal Page 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 heirs of Mathaias filed a petition for eviction as against some of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. Similarly, there is reference to Rent Control Petition filed by legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer as against R.J.Mathaias. Quite interestingly, the leasehold right in respect of building alone was conveyed by the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. It is pertinent to mention that T.S.Swaminatha Iyer purchased the building along with the land in 1946. If the entire property belongs to T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, why T.S.Swaminatha Iyer conveyed his leasehold right in respect of his building alone ? In the documents, vendors had also conveyed undivided share in the land.
28.It is seen that Alocius Mathaias claimed patta under Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 27 of 1963). The claim of Alocius Mathaias is not in tune with the claim of appellants or their predecessors-in-interest. Quite surprisingly, the legal heirs of Mathaias later joined hands with others to execute sale deeds in favour of appellants. Therefore, from the reading of various proceedings right from 1974, this Court finds that the appellants and their predecessors-
Page 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 in-interest have suffered adverse orders earlier and that they have not challenged such orders, but tried to claim patta once again through different persons by distorting facts. While relying upon the recommendation of the Special Tahsildar for grant of patta in 1974, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant wants us to ignore the final order passed by the officials rejecting the claim of appellants for patta, which had not been challenged by the appellants. The contents of the report of Special Tahsildar in 1974 are contrary to the facts gathered from Revenue documents. The report of District Revenue Officer, dated 10.04.1991, is supported by documents relied upon by appellants in this Appeal. When the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants claimed leasehold rights, the appellants are estopped from questioning the paramount title of Government.
B) Entries in General Land Register under Cantonment Land Administration Rules :
29.Right from Day One, the fact that the property has been registered as “B-2” land as per the General Land Register, is admitted. When the Statutory records indicate that the land has been classified as “B-2” land, it Page 40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Robert Zomawia Street reported in 2014 (6) SCC 707 has held that entries in General Land Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules will certainly indicate the character of land unless there is other statutory records to infer otherwise. In this case, right from Day One, the classification of land as per the Resettlement Register and some of the sale deeds relied upon by the appellants themselves give a clear indication as to the character of the disputed land as Government Poramboke which is also assessed to quit rent even in 1905. Absolutely, the appellants are unable to trace their independent title by any document.
30.Therefore, all the documents that are relied upon by the appellants after 1994 are self serving to create rights in favour of third parties for the purpose of getting patta from the Government. This would only suggest that the continuous flow of title, as projected by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, is a myth and several documents between 1994 and 2006 were created only to convey fictitious rights in favour of strangers with an ulterior motive. Even in that process, the appellants' predecessor Page 41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 have admitted the Government as paramount title holder by claiming leasehold rights. Hence, appellants are estopped from claiming title. C) Quit Rent :
31.The first sale deed relied upon by the appellants dated 19.09.1905 is in tune with the Resettlement Register. As referred to earlier, the property had been assessed to “quit rent” and the vendor under 1905 document acknowledges the liability to pay “quit rent” and the sale deed is subject to the liability and the arrears towards municipal taxes and “quit rent”.
32.Even under the Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802, the British Government granted Inams in favour of Zamindars and land holders by way of permanent settlement. These grant or permanent settlement authorised the grantee to levy and collect tax and rent for the lands from the ryots.
Page 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
33.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the fact that the land was assessed to quit rent need not always lead to the conclusion that the land was a leasehold land. His submission is that quit rent may be collected by Government even in respect of freehold land. He relied upon a write-up on the land tenure prior to independence in urban areas, where “quit rent” has been recognised as a levy or land tax imposed on freehold land or leasehold land by the State. Even in this document, “quit rent” has been described as a rent paid by the title holder of the freehold by which he goes quit and free from paying any other tax or levy. It is also stated that, in Madras Presidency, in the year 1859 onwards, under the Inamdhari system, the Inamdhar was offered the privilege of having his land freed from the reversionary claims of the State and converting into a freehold title by agreeing to payment of a reasonable quit-rent. Therefore, even from the material that was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court can presume that “quit rent” is assessed in respect of the land belonged to the Government in the present case particularly when no statute or executive order of Government is produced to show that the Government can recognise a person in possession as owner of property by receiving quit Page 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 rent.
34.It is probable that the British Government in some cases has given an option to the Inamdhars to convert the land to freehold title by agreeing to pay quit rent which is approximately equivalent to the reasonable market value for the property. However, in Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, “quit- rent” is given the following meaning: “A certain small rent, payable by the tenant in token of subjection, by which the tenant goes quiet and free; Chief rent – This is a small yearly payment made by owners of land to a more or less nominal landlord.” Therefore, “quit rent” can be given a different meaning depends upon the context. In some cases, “quit rent” refers to a payment to Government by a freeholder or copy-holder and upon payment of quit rent, the tenant is free and discharged of certain obligations in relation to the land. Assessment of quit rent for every fasli certainly indicate that the assessee is not recognised as owner. In Sri Madhavaperumal Devasthanam, Mylapore, Madras – 4 represented by Executive Officer v. Dhanalakshmi and others reported in 1996 (2) LW 231, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the words “quit-rent” Page 44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 and “copyhold”. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :
“10.A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that it has placed reliance on three circumstances to uphold the claim of the plaintiffs. The first is that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the plaintiffs are paying quit rent to the temple. According to the appellate judge, the very fact that quit rent is being paid to the temple shows without any doubt that the temple is having only melwaram right (see paragraph 12). There is no warrant or justification in law for taking such a view. The mere use of the expression “quit rent” will not by itself prove that the person who collects quit rent is the owner off melwaram only. In Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary “‘quit rent’ has been defined as ‘fixed rent paid by the freeholders and copyholders (especially the latter) of a manor in discharge or acquittance of other services’. A ‘copyhold’ is defined in the same dictionary as ‘signifying a tenure by copy of court roll at the will of the lord of a manor according to the custom thereof. It is stated that it is in manors only that copyholds are to be found, and it is by the immemorial custom of the particular manor that the copyholder's interest must be regulated and originally copyholders were villeins or slaves, permitted by the lord, as Page 45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 an act of pure grace or favour, to enjoy the lands at his pleasure; being in general bound to the performance of certain services.
11.In Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, “Quit-Rent” is defined as “A certain small rent, payable by the tenant in token of subjection, by which the tenant goes quiet and free. (Tomlins Law dictionary); Chief rent. This is a small yearly payment made by owners of land to a more or less nominal landlord (2 Blackstone, 42.)” There is nothing in Indian Law to show that quit rent is payable only to a melwaramdar by a kudiwaramdar. The question as to the extent of ownership of the person who pays the quit rent and of the person who receives the same has to be decided only on the basis of the entire evidence on record. Hence, that reasoning of the Appellate judge is erroneous.”
35.Therefore, when a land which is in the enjoyment of a person was given by way of grant, subject to rendering services or other conditions, it is in practice to convert the land as freehold without an obligation to do services by collecting a fixed sum as “quit rent” which is assessed either as a lumpsum payment or payable annually. By paying quit rent, a person is Page 46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 discharged from his obligations to render services or other conditions, however, it does not change the character of land to claim title as against person who had granted the right. What is important to note is that the term “freehold” does not mean that title vest with the holder of freehold right in all cases. In the case on hand, quit rent is not fixed as a consideration for assignment. Taking note of the fact that the land is a Government Poramboke land, the entry in 1905 in the Resettlement Register shows the assessment and collection of quit rent from the person in possession is to assert Government's paramount title over the land. It is also indicated that assessment of quit rent is by calculating the nominal rent being collected from any land which is collected as rent from leaseholds lands.
36.Therefore, the argument of learned Senior Counsel giving different meaning to the word “quit rent” in the present context is not acceptable and this Court holds that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants have acknowledged their liability to pay quit rent, admitting the paramount title of the Government and the classification of the land as Government Poramboke.
Page 47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
37.From the Resettlement Register, this Court is unable to hold that the land in dispute was held by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants at any point of time. It is pertinent to mention that, in none of the documents which are produced by the appellants tracing title from 1905, the vendors had disclosed their source of title except the fact that they got the property from the previous vendor. Therefore, the entries in Resettlement Register can be taken as genuine and the appellants' predecessors-in-interest having paid quit rent recognising the paramount title of Government are estopped from claiming title against the Government.
38.It is the case of the appellants that T.S.Swaminatha Iyer became the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed in the year 1946. Stating that the said T.S.Swaminatha Iyer was in possession for long number of years and that he filed an application for grant of patta in the year 1968, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellants ought to have been granted patta in recognition of their continuous possession. It is further submitted that there is no document of lease.
Page 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022
39.From a close scrutiny of documents and reports of Revenue officials and previous proceedings, this Court is able to see that there is no lease by Government in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the appellants at any point of time. However, taking note of the enjoyment of Government Poramboke land by the appellants' predecessors-in-interest, the land was brought under “miscellaneous lease” category, so as to collect quit rent from the person in enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the submission that the land is not a leasehold land but presumed to be the land belongs to the person in possession, cannot be accepted.
40.It is not in dispute that, as against the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, proceedings were initiated for eviction under Land Encroachment Act. After the order of eviction under the Land Encroachment Act, one of the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer, by name T.S.Sabesan, filed a suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 for permanent injunction. It is the case of the said T.S.Sabesan that the suit property originally belonged to his father T.S.Swaminatha Iyer. It is stated that the tenant of Page 49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 T.S.Sabesan served a notice to Sabesan about the order passed under the Land Encroachment Act directing eviction. However, the suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, was dismissed as abated. No steps have been taken by the legal heirs of T.S.Sabesan to prosecute the suit further, even though they joined together in creating subsequent sale deeds and documents. Even in 1982, the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer were aware of the proceedings initiated for eviction by treating them as encroachers. They were successful in preventing the Revenue officials from proceeding further under the pretext of pursuing their application for grant of patta. Even though the suit in O.S.No.1499 of 1982 is for permanent injunction, the relief is based on title. Therefore, the principles of Order II Rule 2 of CPC will apply and atleast the said T.S.Sabesan or anyone who is claiming under him cannot file another suit for declaration of title.
41.From the whole set of facts, this Court can legitimately infer that the appellants and their predecessors-in-interest somehow managed to circumvent the order of eviction, probably under the pretext that their claim Page 50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 for patta through one Mathaias, a fictitious tenant, is pending. D) Bona fides of the appellants' claim for title :
42.As seen earlier, Alocius Mathaias and others, who are the legal heirs of Mathaias, applied for grant of patta under Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 27 of 1963) on the ground that they were in possession of the land as tenants. The claim of Mathaias was rejected originally by the Assistant Settlement Officer and thereafter, by the Settlement Officer. The Government, after considering the request and after perusal of connected records, by proceedings vide reference dated 12.03.2001, rejected the claim of Alocius Mathaias and others on the ground that the land is a Government Poramboke and it is required for public purpose. Till such time the legal heirs of Mathaias, namely Alocius Mathaias and 7 others, were pursuing their application for grant of patta, the legal heirs of T.S.Swaminatha Iyer did not claim patta, either under Act 27 of 1963 or under the common law right. It is only after final orders were passed rejecting the claim of the Alocius Mathaias and 7 others, the appellants started claiming the right of ownership as a person in Page 51 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 possession for long number of years.
43.This Court has already seen that there is a pattern. It is seen that the claim of legal heirs of Mathaias claiming patta on the basis of alleged leasehold right, is independent of the appellants' claim. The subsequent alienation of the alleged leasehold right in respect of the building by the legal heirs of T.S.Swamintha Iyer, is again a fictitious transaction. In the absence of any explanation to connect, it is not open to the appellants to rely upon these documents for the purpose of strengthening his arguments on uninterrupted possession and continuous flow of title.
44.In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents, particularly, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, pointed out several Power of Attorney Deeds and particularly, four Power of Attorney Deeds executed by the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest in favour of different persons for the purpose of pursuing their claim for patta from Revenue officials. The chain of events and execution of multiple Power of Attorney Deeds one after another gives an indication that the appellants Page 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 have made great efforts in approaching the Revenue Department for getting exclusive patta for a land which is classified as Poramboke. Taking advantage of the fact that eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents were not prosecuted by due diligence to take possession, the appellants have come forward with a vexatious claim, quite contrary to the Revenue documents, particularly the Resettlement Register. This litigation is therefore an attempt to grab the land of Government. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
45.As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, the disputed property, by virtue of classification as “B-2” land as per Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021, should be treated as land vest with the State Government in occupation or having control over the land. The Extract from the General Land Register in respect of G.L.R.S.No.363 gives an indication that the disputed land is the land which is classified as “B-2” land which is always a land belongs to the State Government. It is well settled that the burden lies on the appellants to establish their case irrespective of whether the respondents have proved Page 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 their stand or not. When the appellants are unable to produce before this Court enough documents to sustain their claim of title, and when the appellants are reiterating their claim of title without evidence ignoring the fact that the materials produced by the appellants themselves are sufficient to hold the character of land as Government poramboke land, this Court is unable to find merit in any of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.
46.As pointed out by this Court earlier, this litigation is vexatious and the appellants have come with unclean hands by pleading a case quite contrary to the admitted records and their own documents. The whole case is based on speculation and hence, no relief can be granted. The writ petition is nothing but vexatious is an attempt to grab Government land.
47.For all the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Even though this Court has expressed its concern and was originally intended to impose exemplary costs, dismisses the Appeal with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Page 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2621 of 2022 One Lakh only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
48.It is now reported by the learned Additional Advocate General that proceedings have been initiated for eviction and possession is likely to be taken. Since this Court has held that the land is a Government Poramboke, even in case the possession is not secured so far, the respondents 3 to 5 are directed to take possession, if necessary, by resorting to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The respondents 3 to 5 are directed to file a Status Report by 03.02.2025, so that this Court may pass appropriate orders if necessary.
49.Post the matter on 03.02.2025 “for filing status report”.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
Page 55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
23.09.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Alandur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
6.The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
Page 56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
St. Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram,
Chennai – 600 019.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
mkn
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
Page 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2621 of 2022
23.09.2024
Page 58
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis