N.Adikesavan vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 7 April, 2011

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

N.Adikesavan vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 7 April, 2011

Bench: Vinod K.Sharma

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.04.2011
CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.Nos.12613 and 24522 of 2001

1.	N.Adikesavan
2.	Chinnayan
3.	Jayaraman
4.	Mangaliammal
5.	Paneerselvam
6.	Doss
7.	Muthian
8.	Muthulakshmi
9.	Kannan
10.	Parvathiammal
11.	Ravi
12.	Rukmani
13.	Gowri
14.	Mohan
15.	Valmurthy
16.	Dilipkumar
17.	Neelakandan
18.	Logammal
19.	Sakunthala
20.	Ravayammal
21.	Santhanammal
22.	Saraswathi
23.	Omprakash
24.	Sundararaj
25.	Sivaraj
26.	Kalaivani			
27.	Murugesh
28.	Lingaganapathy
All Rep. by the General
Power of Attorney
B.Balakrishnan			.. Petitioners in W.P.No.12613 of 2001.

29.	Thirunavukkarasu
30.	Killiammal
31.	Madurai Muthu 
32.	Karunakaran
33.	Mahalingam
34.	Ramadoss			.. Petitioners in W.P.No.24522 of 2001.


(P22 to P26 are proposed parties as legal heirs of deceased P19)
(P27 & P28 are proposed parties as legal heirs of deceased P20)
(P5, P7 to P9, P15, P16 & P17 were deleted as per order of this Court dated 17.02.2011)
				Vs.

1. 	The Commissioner of Land Administration,
	Chepauk,
    	Chennai - 600 005.

2. 	The Commissioner and Director of Survey
	   and Settlement,
    	Chennai  600 005.

3.	The Settlement Officer,
	Thanjavur

4.	The Assistant Settlement Officer,
	Tiruvannamalai

5.	Sri Krishna Tiles Potteries (Madras)
	Private Limited,
	No.25, 4th Street,
	Abirama Puram,
	Chennai  600 018.	.. Respondents in W.P.Nos.12613 and 24522 of 

6.	B.Balakrishnan	.. Respondent in W.P.No.24522 of 2001.

(R2 to R11 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 10.09.2003)
(R12 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 16.12.2010)

Prayer in W.P.No.12613/2001: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the 1st respondent's proceedings in R.Dis.(K1) RP5/2000 dated 14.05.2001 and quash the same.

Prayer in W.P.No.24522/2001: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No.R.Dis.(K1) RP5/2000 dated 14.5.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to issue patta in the name of the petitioners in respect of the property in S.No.229/1A and 230/7A situated at Koyambedu Village to an extent of 2.52 acres.

Writ Petition
Name of the counsel for the Petitioners
Name of the counsel for the Respondents
W.P.No.12613/ 2001
Mr.R.Thiagarajan, S.C.
For Mr.Krishna Moorthy & Mr.M.Jaiganesh
For R1 to R4: Mr.B.Vijay, G.A.
For R5: Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, S.C.,
	 For M/s.Rank Asso.
           For Mr.R.Malaichamy

W.P.No.24522/ 2001
1. Mr.V.Manohar
2. Mr.N.Thiyagarajan
3. Mr.Gurunathan
For R1 to R4: Mr.B.Vijay, G.A.
For R5: Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, S.C.,
	 For M/s.Rank Asso.
	 For Mr.R.Malaichamy
For R6: 1. Mr.Krishna Moorthy
	  2. Mr.M.Jaiganesh
For R12: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, S.C., 	   and Mr.G.Masilamani, S.C.
	   For Mr.R.Swaminathan

*****
C O M M O N  O R D E R

This judgement shall dispose of the following two writ petitions, viz., Sl. No. Case No. Name of the Petitioner 1 W.P.No.12613 of 2001

1. N.Adikesavan

2. Chinnayan

3. Jayaraman

4. Mangaliammal

5. Paneerselvam

6. Doss

7. Muthian

8. Muthulakshmi

9. Kannan

10. Parvathiammal

11. Ravi

12. Rukmani

13. Gowri

14. Mohan

15. Valmurthy

16. Dilipkumar

17. Neelakandan

18. Logammal

19. Sakunthala

20. Ravayammal

21. Santhanammal

22. Saraswathi

23. Omprakash

24. Sundararaj

25. Sivaraj

26. Kalaivani

27. Murugesh

28. Lingaganapathy 2 W.P.No.24522 of 2001

1. Thirunavukkarasu

2. Killiammal

3. Madurai Muthu

4. Karunakaran

5. Mahalingam

6. Ramadoss as the common question of law and facts are raised in these two writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P.No.12613 of 2001.

2. The petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2001, passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The facts pleaded in support of the petition by B.Balakrishnan, S/o. R.D.Baskar, the Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioners, are that;

i) Koyambedu Village in Chingleput District was originally an Inam Estate. It was notified under the provisions of the Estates Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari Act (Act 26 of 1948) vide G.O.Ms.No.2302 Revenue Department dated 01.09.1951 and taken over on 01.10.1951.

ii) An adjacent village i.e. Thirumangalam was Zamin Estate, which was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.3157 Revenue Department dated 09.12.1950 was taken over on 09.01.1951. Survey was effected and Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in Fazli 1369.

iii) One R.Chandrasekar, a Power of Attorney Agent of Sri Elumalai and others made a claim for patta. The basis of the claim is that the lands covered by the proceedings before the respondents originally belonged to one Tmt.Vedammal. In the year 1914, one Alavattan, S/o. Amavasai and others purchased these lands from her and patta was issued in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased pattadars.

iv) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai examined the claim and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai for a detailed enquiry.

v) When the matter was pending before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, the petitioners made an application alleging that the lands originally belonged to Alavattan and Amavasai by virtue of the purchase in the year 1914 and 1915. After the death of Alavattan and Amavasai, their legal heirs executed a Power in favour of Thiru R.D.Baskar, father of B.Balakrishnan and after his death, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of B.Balakrishnan. The petitioners made a claim for patta in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Alavattan ana Amavasai.

vi) The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, vide order dated 31.07.1998, rejected the claim and held that patta already stood granted to one Sri. Renganathan, Ex-Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village under Sections 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act, by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittor vide order dated 31.07.1952.

vii) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai dated 31.07.1998, filed Writ Petition No.14267 of 1998 in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 22.09.1998, on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal, before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the appellate authority on 10.11.1998, holding it to be time barred and that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay.

viii) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 10.11.1998, filed revision before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, who accepted the revision and allowed Roytwari patta, in favour of B.Balakrishnan, as Power of Attorney Agent, though it should have been in favour of petitioners.

ix) It is the case of the petitioners that before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, specific contention was raised, that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 23.06.1987, the Settlement Officer is empowered to condone the delay of 30 days beyond the period of limitation prescribed.

x) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement held that under the rules, the Settlement Officer had the power to condone the delay. The revisional authority also held, that Section 12 of the Act deals with grant of patta to Zamindars in respect of private and pannai lands, while Section 13 of the Act deals with grant of patta to Inamdars for private and pannai lands.

xi) It was further held that the dispute was with respect to S.No.229/1A and 230/7A and certain old paimash number connected with these.

xii) The case of the petitioners is that it was after considering the entire documents that revisional authority held that the order of the appellate authority was not sustainable and ordered grant of patta for 1.76 acres of lands in S.No.229/1A and 3 Acres in S.No.230/7A, in favour of the petitioners under Section 11 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act. It was also held that the pattas standing in the name of M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, in respect of these survey numbers and the sub-division records be revised and modified suitably.

xiii) Aggrieved by the order, M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, which stood accepted vide impugned order.

xiv) The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the Commissioner of Land Administration, wrongly held that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, had no power or authority to reopen the case in 1996, which was settled in the year 1952, by exercising the powers under G.O.Ms.No.1400 CT & RE Department dated 21.11.1975, on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.714, the Settlement Officer had the power to condone the delay in filing appeal / revision before him.

xv) The ground is also taken that under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Settlement Officer is subordinate to the Director and is bound by the lawful instructions, issued by him from time to time, and that the Section further empowers the Director to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which appeal lies to the Tribunal. xvi) It was in exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act that the case was earlier remanded back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, to make a fresh enquiry. It is also the ground that the Commissioner of Land Administration failed to appreciate that the order dated 31.07.1952, resulting in the grant of patta in favour of A.K.Renganathan, did not have binding effect, since he had failed to establish the claim for patta in 1952, in respect of the properties, nor the provisions of Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act, authorized the Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of patta. xvii) The ground is also taken that the Commissioner of Land Administration, wrongly held that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal or revision after 29.07.1987, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. xviii) The other ground of challenge pleaded in the petition is, that the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Land Administration that A.K.Renganathan, Ex-Zamindar and his wife Karpagambal had settled the properties in favour of their sons in 1944, which is subsequent to 1944, is erroneous as neither Renganathan nor his wife had any subsisting claim for patta in the year 1952. It is also pleaded that the Commissioner of Land Administration wrongly held that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had no locus standi to question the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, passed on 31.07.1952. xix) The ground is also taken that the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Land Administration is contrary to the facts established in the case, therefore, not sustainable.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of respondenet no.1, it has been stated as under:

3. It is submitted that Koyambedu and Thirumangalam villages in erstwhile Chengalpattu (now Chennai district) district. Koyambedu was an Inam Estate and Thirumangalam was a Zamin Estate. Koyambedu village was notified in G.O.Ms.No.3157, Revenue Department dt. 9.12.1950 and taken over on 09.01.1951 under the provision of T.N.Estates (A & CR) Act XXVI/48. These villages were surveyed as a single unit and called as Koyambedu village Paimash Nos. of Koyambedu village were given survey members 1 to 206 and Paimash Numbers of Thirumangalam village were given Survey Nos.207 to 322, The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor by his order dated 31.7.1952 in Dis.S.No.28/Zamin/1951, allowed ryotwari patta for various Survey Numbers. During the settlement paimash Nos. 1,3,5 to 12, 27, 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 36, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 49 to 57, 62 to 70, 88, 299 and 300 were clubbed in New S.No.230/7 with an extent of 24.69 acres and paimash Nos.71 to 80, 82, 83, 93 to 95, 100, 104 to 107 were clubbed together as S.No.229/1 with an extent of 10.78 acres. According to the provision of the Tamil Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1848 Act XXVI/48, against the ryotwari patta granted u/s. 12 of the said Act next appeal should be preferred before the Estate Abolition Tribunal. But in this case, no appeal was preferred by any one against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor and that therefore, it has become final.

4. It is submitted that in the year 1996, Thiru Elumalai and 20 other represented by their Power Agent Thiru R.Chandrasekaran filed a petition to Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement claiming patta for an extent of 2.28 acre in S.No.229/1 and for 2.06 acre in S.No.230/7 stating that the lands are under their possession and enjoyment since 1914 and Tvl.A.K.Ranganathan and A.R.Rajagopalan have no rights over the land. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement condoned delay citing the G.O.Ms.No.1400, Revenue Department dated 21.11.74 and directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to take up this petition for enquiry. At this juncture, Thiru B.Balakrishnan joined the fray by filing application for grant of patta for the above lands. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement by his letter No.D2/11749/96 dated 1.10.96 directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai to consider his petition also when he takes up enquiry. The Said B.Balakrishnan had obtained directions from the High Court, Chennai in W.P.No.13186/99, W.P.8643/98 to dispose his petition within 8 weeks. The Assistant Settlement Officer after enquiry, dismissed the petition of Tvl.R.Chandrasekaran and B.Balakrishnan as they were ineligible to get patta u/s. 11(a) of Tamil Nadu Act XXVI/48. Aggrieved, Thiru B.Balakrishnan filed a writ petition before the High Court on 14.9.98 and the Hon'ble High Court by their order dated 22.9.98 dismissed the writ petition stating that the petitioner has a remedy by way of filing an appeal. He filed an appeal to the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur who by his order dt. 10.11.98 dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Thiru R.Chandrasekaran filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur on 14.9.98 which was not pursued by the Settlement Officer for want of certain documents from the petitioner and this appeal was closed on 2.6.99.

5. It is submitted that aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer, Thanjavur Tvl.B.Balakrishnan and R.Chandrasekaran filed revisions to the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement. At this time also, Thiru B.Balakrishnan filed W.P.no.1880/99 before the Hon'ble High Court by the order dt. 9.2.97 the Hon'blel High Court directed the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to dispose of the Revision petition within a period of 5 months. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlemenet by his order dated 5.7.99 in proc.RP.1/99 (Rc.D2/19575/98) set aside the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai and Settlement Officer, Thanjavur and allowed ryotwari patta for the suit lands in favour of Thiru B.Balakrishnan as the power holder of the said suit property. Against the orders of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Tvl.Krishna Tiles & Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. filed Revision petition to the Commissioner of Land Administration. Thiru Chandrasekaran who was the petitioner before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement also filed a petition challenging the order of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement. Tmt.Kiliammal and 12 others, who revoked the power of attorney given in favour of Thiru Balakrishnan, earlier have also filed a petition as they are the legal heirs of Amavasai. (It is a land covered by Section 15 of the Act and passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor allowing patt u/s.12 to 14 of Act XXXVI/1948 cannot be questioned before the Settlement forum.

As regards grounds raised it is submitted that the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement which is unsustainable in law and out of his jurisdiction.

It is misconstrued that the G.O.Ms.No.1400, CT & RE dated 1975 and G.O.Ms.No.714, CT & RE dated 23.6.87, have empowered the Director of Survey and Settlement to condone the delay to reopen the case in 1996 which was settled in the year 1952. It is pertinent to mention the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 328 MLJ 1974, wherein the Hon'ble Bench had categorically held that if the lower authority had no power to condone the delay, the appellate authority also cannot condone the delay occurring before the lower authority. When the application for grant of patta under the provision of the Abolition Act was made to Director of Survey and Settlement belatedly he should have summarily rejected it as barred by limitation instead of calling for report from the Assistant Settlement Officer.

As mentioned supra the Director of Survey and Settlement cannot condone the delay that occurred before the Assistant Settlement Officer, lower forums i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer and Settlement Officer and that too when there is a subsisting order of the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 12.

It is a settled matter before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor. It is evident from the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the binami character of the Zamindar's wife and patta stood in the name of his sons were all considered by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor before allowing patta u/s. 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, the ancestors of the petitioners had since alienated the lands, some 50 years ago, the petitioners cannot make their claim now.

The explanations given in para 24 of order of Commissioner of Land Administration is the self explanatory for setting aside the irregular order passed by the Director of Survey and Settlement.

The petitioners have stated that the 5th respondent had suppressed many material facts before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor. In this regard, it is submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor granted ryotwari patta to the erstwhile Zamindar u/s.12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act XXVI/48. According to Section 15(2)(a) of the said Act any person aggrieved by such decision u/s.12, 13 or 14 may within two months from the said date of the decision appeal to the Tribunal. As such, the Director of Survey and Settlement has no jurisdiction to entertain any application against the grant of patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer u/s.12, 13 or 14. Notwithstanding this section, the Director of Survey and Settlement is barred from entertaining such application as per G.O.Ms.No.714 CT & RE Department, dated 23.6.87. Only after considering these rule provisions the Commissioner of Land Administration has set aside the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai.

The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor considered all these aspects before allowing patta u/s. 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act which is final.

The order of the Director of Survey and Settlement is not only against the provisions of Act XXVI/48 but also unsustainable in law as the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the power of Attorney. It is the settled law that power holder cannot go beyond his principals. The Director of Survey and Settlement has conveniently forgotten that by virtue of the ryotwari patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor, the 5th respondent had lawfully alienated large extent of land in these S.Nos. to TNHB of valuable consideration. The Director of Survey and Settlement without mentioning the above facts arbitrarily granted patta to the power holder, that too, without setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor. The order of Director of Survey and Settlement has only unsettled the matter which was settled as early in the year 1952. It is necessary to point out that only after the Revision filed by the 5th respondent and the order of Director of Survey and Settlement was stayed by the then Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration on 28.9.99, the power holder of the petitioner in this W.P. filed a Revision petition against the order of Director of Survey and Settlement."

5. In order to appreciate the controversy in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to consider the orders passed by the authorities, under the Act. Vide order dated 13.10.1952, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, entertained application, filed by A.K.Ranganathan, under Section 12 of the Act for grant of Ryotwari Patta of the lands mentioned in schedule to those proceedings. It was held that the lands were situated in Thirumangalam Village of Thirumangalam Estate, which was notified by the Government under Section 1(4) of the Act, and taken over by the District Collector on 03.01.1951.

6. A notice under Rule 3(1) of the Rules was issued vide G.O.272b Rev. Dated 12.10.1950 and duly published in the village on 08.03.1951 for holding enquiry on 24.12.1951. The notice was also affixed on the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor with a copy to A.K.Ranganathan. The claim was rejected by the Manager of Estate, Maduranthagam, for paimash numbers 583 to 641. The numbers were found to be Nattam Jari lands for which, it was observed that A.K.Renganathan, was not entitled to Ryotwari patta.

7. On the objection, the claim for paimash numbers 583 to 641, was given up. It was held in the order, that A.K.Ranganathan was Zamindar of Thirumangalam, who acquired the Zamin rights in the village, by the registered document No.2946 of 1929. The document was registered in his name vide registered sale deed No.137 dated 12.12.1929. He purchased the private Kambatham lands measuring 200 acres in his wife's name, at consideration of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only). It was also held that all other lands applied for in the application, was covered by sale deeds during the year 1930 to 1945, wherein, the Kudivaram rights were purchased from the ryotes for consideration, which were in his wife's name as binami.

8. On the death of wife of A.K.Ranganathan, the only daughter acknowledged that her mother was a binamidar, and executed a release document dated 19.07.1950, declaring that she has no interest in the private lands in the Estate. After the death of his wife, A.K.Ranganathan issued patta with respect to all these lands, in the name of 3 sons on 26.03.1949 and the lands were registered in the name of 3 sons. The authority explained that this was done just to keep a distinction between zamin rights and the private interest for assisting the procedure followed by him from the very beginning.

9. The claim of the landholder was that all these lands were his private lands and in his possession for personal enjoyment. His wife was only a binamidar, which was duly acknowledged by the sons and daughters.

10. A positive finding was recorded that A.K.Ranganathan, was the registered landholder for the village of Thirumangalam, and the Documentary evidence covered the Kambatham rights in lands applied for, which were shown to be in the personal enjoyment of A.K.Ranganathan from 1929 onwards. The other lands were purchased from the ryots and were also in continuous possession of binamidar since 1931 since 1941 to June, 1945.

11. The Assistant Settlement Officer, therefore, held that the only point for consideration with regard to the issue of patta, comprising of lands, belonging to his sons. It was further held that the application correctly fell under Section 12, for the following reasons:

i) The patta has been issued only on 25.03.1949 which is after 1945;

ii) The 3 sons have not paid a single paise towards rent for these lands which are registered in their name;

iii) The sons have never been in personal cultivation of these lands which is looked after by the father of the applicant.

iv) Three sons have given a joint statement that patta may be issued in the name of their father. From the above points, it can be seen that the 3 sons are not ryots which is defined in Estate Land Act as a person who holds for the purpose of the agriculture ryoti land in an estate on condition of paying to the landlord the rent which is legally due upon it. It must be added here even while calculating the advance compensation payable to the landholder in this village, these lands have been treated as private lands of the landholder for which he is not entitled for compensation. Under these circumstances, I hold that the application has been correctly made under Section 12 of the Abolition Act and the applicant is entitled for a ryotwari patta for the Kambatham land under Section 12(a)(i) of the Abolition Act and for the remaining lands under Section 12(b)(ii)."

12. Under Section 15 of the Act, the power of adjudicationi under Section 12, 13 & 14 vests with the Settlement Officer, and appeal is provided under Section 15 of the Act against the order passed. It is not in dispute that no appeal against the order was preferred, therefore, the order attained finality.

13. Balakrishnan filed Writ Petition No.8643 of 1998, by pleading therein that he had submitted a representation to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on 22.07.1996, which had not been disposed off inspite of enquiry was conducted on 22.11.1996.

14. This Court disposed off, the writ with direction to the Assistant Settlemenet Officer, Thiruvannamalai, to pass order on the representation of the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

15. The representation made by the petitioner was decided against him, which was challenged by the petitioner, by filing W.P.No.14267 of 1998. The writ petition was dismissed, in view of the alternative remedy of appeal and liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all the points raised in the writ in appeal.

16. After dismissal of the writ petition for want of alternative remedy, the petitioner filed appeal which was rejected by the Settlement Officer, in view of the order dated 31.07.1952, by holding that the claim raised by the petitioners was barred by limitation. The order was challenged before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, which was dismissed, as time barred, having not been filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer also held that even W.P.No.14267 of 1998 was filed beyond 30 days. This was for the reason that even if benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act is given still the appeal was barred by limitation.

17. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the decision, preferred revision before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, under Section 11(a) of the Act. Learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement wrongly held that Settlement Officer held that writ before the High Court was maintainable only if it was filed within 30 days from the receipt of order. These observations, on the face of it, are unwarranted, as the Settlement Officer, nowhere held that writ could be filed within 30 days. The reasoning given was that the appeal before the Settlement Officer was barred by limitation, having not been filed within 30 days of the order, as the writ was also filed after the period of Limitation prescribed for filing the appeal.

18. The observation by Settlement Officer was made in view of the fact, that even if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was to be given to the petitioners, still appeal would be barred by limitation.

19. Learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, also held that the Settlement Officer failed to take note of G.O.Ms.No.714, which empowered the condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days as per the rules, framed vide G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 23.06.1987. The finding was recorded that it was incumbent on the Settlement Officer, to have given opportunity of hearing, so that the petitioners could explain the reason for the delay.

20. This finding again, on the face of it, is not sustainable, as even if the Settlement Officer, had jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days, still ground had to be made out, in grounds of appeal or appeal should have been filed with application for condoning the delay. In absence of pleading to condone the delay or an application accompanying the appeal, the appellate authority was bound to dismiss the appeal without proceeding further with the matter. The comments of learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, therefore, are contrary to the established law. In any case, in the event of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, coming to the conclusion that ground was made out to condone the delay, he could have remanded back to the case by condoning the delay, but had no authority to proceed with the matter, by holding that the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to condone the delay by 30 days and that delay ought to have been condoned and the matter decided on merit, even in absence of pleadings showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

21. It was for the petitioner to show sufficient cause to condone the delay, before appeal could be entertained. It may be observed herein that stricture passed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, against sub-ordinate authorities were uncalled for.

22. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, thereafter, framed the following points for consideration:

i) that the case was of civil nature, but it suffers from serious lapses of settlement provisions, under Estate Abolition Act 26 of 1948.

ia) This finding itself was good enough to reject appeal, by giving liberty to the parties, to raise the dispute in the civil Court. But for the reasons best known to the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, this was not done, and he proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

ii) This Court, vide order dated 09.02.1999, had directed the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to look into the request of the revision petitioner and pass orders within a period of five months.

iia) The observation of the High Court meant, that the matter is to be adjudicated on merits by the authorities concerned, and cannot be taken to be the order of this Court ordering decision on merit of the dispute.

iii) that the case is concerned only for two survey numbers namely 229/1A and 230/7A, and certain old paimash numbers connected with it. The paimas numbers were wrongly included in the documents by the respondent without any sale or transaction or consent of revision petitioner, therefore, it was unauthorised, high handed and unauthentiated.

iiia) This finding again cannot be sustained, as the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, in exercising the jurisdiction, even under Section 5(2) of the Act could not interfere with the order passed in the year 1952, as the jurisdiction under Section 5(2) could be exercised only against order, where no appeal was provided. The order passed in the year 1952 was appealable under Section 15 of the Act.

23. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, thereafter, considered the factual position and allowed the revision, and set aside the order of Settlement Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer. Instead of remanding the case back for adjudication on merit, proceeded to grant patta for 1.76 acres in S.No.229/1A and 3 acres in 230/7A in favour of the petitioner B.Balakrishnan, S/o.R.D.Baskar, who is the power of attorney holder on that date, out of the excess area, which remained unsettled so far under Section 11(a) of the Act, as shown in the schedule. He also set aside the patta, which stood in the name of M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries in S.No.229/1A and 230/7A and the land sub-division records. This part of the order, on the face of it, is unsustainable in law, for want of jurisdiction.

24. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has no jurisdiction to order patta in the name of B.Balakrishnan, who was merely a power of attorney agent of the petitioners. It was also not permissible to order change of patta from the name M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries.

25. M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries filed revision against the order before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

26. Learned Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent No.1') considered all the points, and reversed the findings recorded by recording as under:

23. In the impugned orders, the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, has considered the following points as if they are in favour for the deciding the case in favour of the respondent Thiru B.Balakrishnan:

i)The suit land are in S.No.229/1A and 230/7A and certain old paimash Nos. Connected with. How they were included in all the documents by M/s.Krishna Tiles without any sale or transaction or consent of the Revision Petitioner is quite unauthorised, highhanded and unauthenticated.

ii)In Doct.No.1937/1929 dated 12.12.1929, Thiru Saminaidu while selling the Kudiwaram Rights of lands to Tmt.Karpagambal, he included 80 paimash Nos. roughly measuring 100 acres which was not actually purchased by him. This transaction is irregular.

iii)As per Doct.No.1009/1944 a deed of settlement was executed by Tmt.Karpagambal and her husband Thiru A.K.Ranganathan in favour of their 3 sons. After the death of Tmt.Karpagambal during the year 1948, this Settlement deed was not cancelled. How, Thiru A.K.Ranganathan got patta in his name in the year 1952 without cancelling the Settlement deed is questionable and it is found to be irregular.

iv)In the sale Doct.No.1937/1929 executed by Thiru Saminaidu in favour of Tmt.Karpagambal, the paimash Nos. of certain lands were not mentioned. But these paimash Nos. were included without any authority in the settlement deeds No.980 and 981/1954. The undivided property in S.No.229/1A as per Document No.980 and 981/1954 should not have been sold by Thiru A.R.Rajagopalan and his son Thiru A.R.Santhanakrishnan, as they got no right to sell away the undivided property. The remaining portion of 1.87 acres in S.No.229/1A after acquisition by the TNHB and selling out to CPWD remains unsettled even as on date which Thiru B.Balakrishnan claims for.

v)Prior to a partition among the family members of Thiru A.K.Ranganathan and Tmt.Karpagambal executed in 1972 as per Document No.1437/72, the selling of suit lands to Tvl.Krishna Tiles and Potteries during 1971 was wrong and irregular.

vi)In 1972, an extent of 17.59 acres of lands in S.No.230/7A was sold by the Family members to M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, which is based on Doct.No.980 and 981/1954. So these transactions were irregular due to invalid documentary evidences.

vii)There is different of extent in between the Settlement Register in S.No.230/7A and the Tahsildar's Certificate dated 13.01.1987. The Settlement register shows the extent of 27.66 acres whereas Tahsildar's certificate mentions 19.09 acres. The petitioner's claim of 3 acres lies within the different extent of 8.57 acres. M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries Pvt.Ltd. did not produce the actual patta copy of the suit lands.

viii)Tvl.Alavattan, Amavasai, Appu purchased the lands in 1914 and 1915 as per Registered sale deeds and these lands were found to be under continuous possession enjoyment and rightful ownership of the original buyers from 13.11.1914 and at present of the Revision Petitioner Thiru B.Balakrishnan. Tvl.Krishna Tiles have encroached and trespassed the lands.

ix)A verification of the proceedings of Commissioner of Land Reforms in J2/2518/90 dated 14.03.90 reveals that the Commissioner ordered for tracing out the real owner of the S.No.229/1A before passing orders on the appeal petition under U.L.C.Regulations. This shows that the owner of the S.No.229/1A is somebody else.

x)Thiru B.Balakrishnan obtained irrevocable Power of Attorney from the legal heirs of the original land owners viz. Tvl.Alavattan, Amavasai and Appu. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor should not have issued patta in the name of Thiru A.K.Ranganathan, for the benami land holdings of his wife. Area reconciliation Survey No. wise or Paimash No. wise was not done during Settlement."

All the points raised were answered as under:

Point No.I: The Paimash Nos. 1,3,5 to 12, 27, 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 36, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 49 to 57, 62 to 70, 88, 299 and 300 were correlated to new S.No.230/7 and the paimash Nos.71 to 80, 82, 83, 93 to 95, 100, 104 to 107 were correlated to S.No.229. In document Nos.8/1930, 791/1930, 231/1930, 653/1931 and 953/1931 as detailed in Paragraph 19 above, the Respondent's predecessors in title viz. Alavattan and his sons sold the lands to Tmt.Karpagambal, W/o.Thiru A.K.Ranganathan. Subsequently, these lands came into the lands of their legal heirs and sold by them to M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries Pvt. Ltd. When the legal heirs of Tvl.Alavattan and Amavasai sold the lands in 1929, 1930 and 1931 itself through registered documents, the comments of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement are unwarranted and without any basis.

Point No.II: In Document No.1937/1929 dated 12.12.1929, Thiru Saminaidu and his brothers sold the Kudiwaram rights of the lands, houses, wells etc. to Tmt.Karpagambal. This document covers large extent of lands which the family of said Saminaidu acquired from the ryots of Thirumangalam Village. This has no relevance with the case of the Respondent before me, since the lands of the respondent's predecessors are not covered by this document. The Respondent's predecessors have sole the Kudiwaram right of the land direct to the Zamindar's wife through various registered documents. So they cannot question the validity of the other sales for which they are not connected with.

Point No.III: As per Doct.No.1009/1944, Thiru A.K.Ranganathan and his wife Tmt.Karpagambal, settled their landed properties and their business called M/s.Krishna Brickworks among their 3 sons, viz. Tvl. A.R.Swaminathan, A.R.Krishnamoorthy and A.R.Rajagopalan, because of their desires to see that their sons should be put into business and earn for themselves and they should also be in possession of the Kudivaram rights. Tmt.Karpagambal died in 1948 and her only daughter acknowledged that her mother was a binamidar and accordingly, she executed a release document No.816/1950 declaring that she has no interest in the private lands in Estate. The Zamindar Thiru A.K.Ranganathan also issued patta for all the lands to his three sons on 25.03.1949 because to keep a distinction between Zamin rights and the private interest in the estate for assisting the procedure followed by him from the very beginning. The 3 sons of A.K.Ranganathan have filed a joint statement before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor, stating that the patta may be issued in their father's name. So it is clear from the proceedings of the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor that the binami character of the Zamindars wife and patta stand in the name of his sons were all considered by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor before allowing patta under Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the Settlement deed 1009/1944 relied by the Respondent has no additional value in favour of him.

Point No.IV: As already stated in Point No.1, the sale of certain lands by Thiru Saminaidu to Tmt.Karpagambal by Doct.No.1937/1929 has no relevancy with the lands of the Respondent's predecessors. Subsequent settlement of the property among the family members of Thiru A.K.Ranganathan as per Doct.No.980 and 981/1954 is within their family only and the validity and legality of these documents should be questioned only by the family members and the Respondent has nothing to criticise the family settlement of the Revision Petitioner.

Point No.V & VI: As explained above, the family settlement in Doc.No.980 and 981/1954, subsequent settlement among themselves in 1972 and selling of the lands by the family members to their company, viz. Krishna Tiles and Potteries (P) Ltd. are not relevant to the Respondent. Once their predecessors sold their lands to the Revision Petitioner's predecessors, they have nothing to question the validity of settlement, sale etc. by the purchasers' family members.

Point No.VII: As per settlement register, the extent in S.No.230/7A, is 27.66 acres. After acquisition of certain lands by the TNHB, and sale to CPWD or settlement among the family members, the land belonging to M/s.Krishna Tiles is 19.09 acres for which the Tahsildar issued a certificate on 13.01.1987. The contentions of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement that this difference in extent is in support of the Respondent is unacceptable and unwarranted.

Point No.VIII: It is true that Tvl. Alavattan, Amavasai and Appu purchased the lands in 1914 and 1915 as per Registered Sale Deeds. But they and their legal heirs sold the suit lands to Tmt.Karpagambal in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 as per Registered Sale Deeds. It is not known how they would be under continuous possession, enjoyment and rightful ownership as observed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement till now even after the sales in 1929, 1930, 1931 and it is highly irregular to say that the purchasers have encroached the suit lands.

Point No.IX: It is seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Reforms J2/2518/1990, dated 12.03.1990 that on an appeal by Tvl.Krishna Tiles and Potteries (P) Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T., Poonamallee passed under Section 9(5) of T.N. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978, the Commissioner of Land Reforms directed the Assistant Commissioner, ULT to ascertain the ownership of S.No.229/1A for deciding the actual excess land under the Act. Accordingly, the Asst. Commissioner, ULT, verified and found that the land in S.No.229/1A belong to Tvl.ARR Trustee and deducted the extent in S.No.229/1A from the total excess land. The words to ascertain the ownership for S.No.229/1A occurring in this orders have been taken by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement as an advantage for the Respondents claim which is funny.

Point No.X: It is seen from the Genealogical tree submitted by Thiru B.Balakrishnan before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai that Thiru Alavattan had 4 sons viz. Nariyan, Amavasai, Nagan and Gangan and that Tmt.Kiliammal and 12 others are the legal heirs of late Amavasai, Tmt.Kiliammal and otheres had executed the power of Attorney in favour of Thiru R.D.Baskar, father of Thiru Balakrishnan as per Doct.No.832/1995 dt. 23.8.95 and Doct.No.867/95 dated 31.8.95 to contest the case on their behalf. Subsequently as per Doct.No.171 and 179 dated 5.2.1996 Tmt.Kiliammal and others cancelled the Power of Attorney given to Thiru R.D.Baskar. So, Thiru B.Balakrishnan is having the Power of Attorney given by the legal heirs of Tvl.Nariyan, Nagan and Gangan only. Without the Power of Attorney of Tmt.Kiliammal and others, who are the legal heirs of Thiru Amavasai, Thiru B.Balakrishnan is eligible for 75% share of the property measuring 2.47 acres belonging to Thiru Alavattan as shown in (ii) and (iii) under paragraph 18 above, which comes to 1.85 acres only. But the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has allowed patta in the name of the 75% power holder, Thiru B.Balakrishnan for a total extent of 4.76 acres without verifying the Legal Heirship Certificates and the documents empowering or cancelling the Power of Attorney. Before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Thiru B.Balakrishnan filed a Genealogical tree stating that Tmt.Kiliammal and 12 others are the legal heirs of Amavasai. Now, before me, he has filed a Genealogical tree stating that Tvl.Natesan and 5 others are the legal heirs of (Late) Amavasai. This creates doubts in my mind as to whom are the actual legal heirs of (Late) Amavasai."

The Commissioner of Land Administration recorded a finding, that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had no power or locus standi to question the validity of the orders issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor on 31.07.1952 after the lapse of 46 years.

27. A positive finding was recorded that the main criteria for issue of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, is that all ryoti land should be properly included in the holding of the ryot before the notified date. The notified date in this case was 09.01.1951 and in order to get a patta for the lands, the respondent's predecessors, namely, Tvl.Alavattan, Amavasai and Appu should have been in possession of the suit lands as on 09.01.1951 in their holdings. But they had sold the lands and Kudivaram rights in the land during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 by way of registered sale deeds, therefore, the case of the respondent's predecessor was liable to fail on this ground alone.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order by submitting the following facts:

2) The petitioners filed W.P.No.24522 of 2001 challenging the proceeding of the 1st respondent dated 14.05.2001. The very same proceedings have been under challenge in W.P.No.12613 of 2001 by an alleged Power of Attorney in which these Petitioners are Respondents 6 to 11 therein.

3) The subject land bearing Doc.No.1703/1914, SRO, Sembium dated 13.11.1914 was purchased by these petitioner's ancestor, great grandfather Alavattan from Tmt.Vedammal to an extent of 5.03 acres. They are the descendants of the above said Ammavasai and thus they are co-owners of the subject land bearing Doc.No.1703/1914 by way of inheritance.

4) The another subject land bearing Doc.No.1702/1914, SRO, Sembium dated 13.11.1914 was purchased by these petitioner's great grandfather Ammavasai, S/o.Alavattan from Tmt.Vedammal to an extent of 5.05 acres and thus these Petitioners are the co-owners of the subject land by way of inheritance.

5) One more subject land bearing Doc.No.505/1915, SRO, Sembium dated 4.5.1915 was purchased by these petitioner's great grandfather Alavattan from the sons and grandson of another Alavattan namely, Boee, Chinnappan, Vaithan, Ammavasai and Thoppulan to an extent of 2.88 acres. Thus, these petitioners are the co-owners of the subject land by way of inheritance.

6) These petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the above said lands. The 5th respondent made attempts to dispossess them from the above said lands. These petitioners belong to Schedule caste community. They all are poor people. Therefore, they have given Power of Attorney to one Shri. R.D.Baskar to approach the appropriate revenue authorities on behalf of them to get patta in their name. He also approached the revenue authority to get patta to their property as mentioned above. But during the proceedings, he passed away. In the meanwhile his son i.e. the 6th respondent in the above said writ petition contested the matter before the revenue authorities including for these petitioners.

7) The 6th respondent made attempt to get patta in his name and also wanted to sell the property. Therefore, these petitioners appeared before the 1st respondent and implead themselves as parties to the revision petition.

8) One R.Chandrasekar also a Power of Attorney appeared before the revenue authorities for and on behalf of Valmurthy and others. The said Valmurthy and otheres have now disowned their rights in the subject land and filed memo with affidavit in this regard in W.P.No.12613 of 2001.

9) That the said B.Balakrishnan filed one document in respect of the Genealogical Tree of Alavattan before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai which includes these petitioners. Therefore, it is evident that the said Balakrishnan has wantonly included the said Valmurthy and others as interested parties in the subject land in order to enrich himself by unjust means.

10) That these petitioners are entitled < share in respect of subject lands.

11) That the Revenue authorities have not taken any steps to implement the Estate (Abolition conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI 1948 and amendments issued by the Govt. from time to time in favour of the Ryotwari. Had the Revenue authorities properly implemented the said Act, these petitioners and other affected poor people would have got patta to their lands owned by them. But in order to help the rich persons as like that of the 5th respondent the revenue authorities have not implemented the said Act for the reasons best known to them. In this regard the 1st petitioner has made a detailed representation dated 24.02.2011 to the authorities concerned to implement the said Act.

12) That these petitioners' ancestor Mudichur Alavattan had 4 sons. They were Nariyan, Ammavasai, Gangan and Nagan. They are direct descendants of Ammavasai.

13) One another Alavattan had 5 sons. They were Boee, Chinnappan, Vaithan, Ammavasai and Thoppulan.

14) From the above, it is very clear that both Alavattan had more than one son. But for the reasons best known to the 6th respondent i.e. the alleged Power Agent, he has averred in his counter affidavit that another Alavattan had only one son. The 6th respondent has further averred that the said Alavattan was the son of Ammavasai. This is not correct. In both cases Ammavasai's were the sons of one Alavattan and another Alavattan respectively.

15) Before the 1st respondent, the 6th respondent averred in his revision petition that the Mudichur Alavattan had only one son namely Ammavasai. But in W.P.No.12613 of 2001 before this Hon'ble Court, it was represented that 3 sons of Mudichur Alavattan, namely, Nagan, Nariyan and Gangan and also the descendants of another Alavattan son Late Ammavasai. Therefore, he himself admitted in W.P.No.12613 of 2001 that there were 4 sons for Alavattan. But in his counter affidavit, he made false averments. The said Valmurthy and others made false averments before this Hon'ble Court in C.S.No.737 of 1997 and obtained order alleging that the Alavattan had only one son. The said suit is transferred to the Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, due to pecuniary jurisdiction and is pending.

16) The 6th respondent contested the case before the revenue authorities for these petitioners also as stated above. But before the 1st respondent and also before this Hon'ble Court he has willfully shown the said Valmurthy and others as if they are the descendants of the grandfather of the petitioners. From this it is very evident that the 6th respondent has approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands.

17) These petitioners submit that "In the Zamin Thirumangalam upto the date 20.06.1917 Kannisamy Reddiyar was the Zamindar of Thirumangalam and no disputes were arisen at all and also no mortgage and no promissory notes were executed".

18) When the great grandfather of these petitioners was alive, in the year 1917, except their property, the property of Zamin Thirumangalam was purchased by one Perumal Naidu and in the year 1918, the said Perumal Naidu expired and then his son Sami Naidu took the charge of the Zamindar, Zamin Thirumangalam Village No.81, Thirumangalam Zamin from 1918 to 1929. Due to non-payment of property tax to the revenue authority, these petitioner's father's grandfather i.e Mudichur Alavattan, executed a promissory note in respect of the properties purchased by him dated 09.01.1920 and the elder son of their great grandfather namely one Nariyan made a portion of the property to encumbrance by way of executing the promissory note dated 06.01.1923 in favour of the said Zamindar, Sami Naidu and then the younger son of their great grandfather Ammavasai, Nagan and Gangan executed the deed of one demand simple mortgage to the said Zamindar Sami Naidu and the 1st deed of simple mortgage was executed by elder son of their great grandfather one Nariyan on 23.10.1918. Their grandfather also made a promissory note on demand dated 30.09.1924 to the said Zamindar Sami Naidu. In these circumstances the Zamin Thirumangalam Village has been changed into No.79 instead of No.81.

19) While the facts being so, the said Zamindar Sami Naidu was unable to manage the Thirumangalam Zamin and in the said circumstances the said Zamindar had handed over the Zamin Administration and executed two sale deeds on the properties of 79, Thirumangalam Zamin in favour of one A.K.Ranganathan bearing in Doc.No.1936 of 1929 dated 12.12.1929 and his wife Kalpagambal (Karpagambal) bearing in Doc.No.1937 of 1929 dated 12.12.1929. The sale deeds executed by the said Sami Naidu and his brothers and his brother's son, revealed that the said Sami Naidu had given the authorization to the said Kalpagambal, W/o.A.K.Ranganathan to collect the money by pointing out on demand note and simple mortgage deed executed by the great grandfather and grandfather of the petitioners in favour of the said Sami Naidu bearing Doc.No.1937 of 1929.

20) The said Kalpagambal created a sale deed bearing Doc.No.8 of 1930 dated 31.12.1929 without revealing anything about the document to the great grandfather of the petitioners. This document seems to be filed at the end of the year 1929 and numbered at the beginning of the year 1930. It is seen from the Documents that in lieu of the interest amount towards the mortgaged property and promissory note on demand which was mortgaged by Nariyan only and for the amount borrowed from the then Zamin of Thirumangalam Sami Naidu by the said Nariyan, the Zamindar family had created the said sale deed in the name of Kalpagambal, W/o.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and obtained thumb impression from the sons of Mudichur Alavattan namely 1) Nariyan, 2) Ammavasai, 3) Gengan and 4) Nagan without revealing anything about the document. It is pertinent to mention here that consideration had been passed on towards the sale of the said properties bearing paimash Nos.8, 72 and 12 only (to an extent 1-2-10, Acre 1.54 only) to the sons of Mudichur Alavattan but not for the rest of the properties. But the said Kalpagambal, wife of A.K.Ranganathan by illegal means registered the properties in her name by influencing her power as Zamindar. It is also pertinent to mention here that the said Kalpagambal without paying a single paise to Nariyan, Amavasai, Gengen and Nagan had alleged to be registered the sale of the above said properties in her name saying they had adjusted the promissory note amount executed in favour of Sami Naidu and for interest in respect of the properties entrusted to Sami Naidu by simple mortgage which was later made over to her by Sami Naidu towards alleged sale consideration for the purchase of the above said properties with influence of her husband in his capacity as Zamindar as stated above. It is also to be mentioned here that the properties were mortgaged only to the then Zamin of Thirumangalam Sri. Sami Naidu. Therefore, it seems that the said Kalpagambal illegally registered the sale in her name.

21) In the said sale deed it has been mentioned that the properties' consideration, principal amount together with interest of on demand note made one Nariyan executed in favour of Sami Naidu dated 6.1.1923 as due being Rs.184.0.0 and further as per the simple mortgage executed on 23.10.1918 in favour of Sami Naidu and interest as due being Rs.12.8.0 and both the items works out Rs.196.8.0 and since the same had been made over in favour of Kalpagambal by the aforesaid Sami Naidu and accordingly the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs.196.8.0 stated to be credited.

22) The Kalpagambal executed a sale deed for Rs.1,000/- bearing Doc.No.653 of 1931 dated 30.05.1931. This document reveals that the sons of Mudichur Alavattan namely, 1) Nariyan, 2) Ammavasai, 3)Gengan and 4) Nagan had sole lands comprising in paimash Nos.79, 105, 115, 116, 154, 245, 249, 293, 302, 303, 304, 257, 328, 333, 334, 122 and 123 works out 7.04 acres, but they have created a sale deed only to an extent, Kani 4-8-7, (Acres 5.99). But only Rs.20/- had been passed on consideration. Hence the said sale deed is a defective one and void as per the Indian Contract Act. It is also seen that the Sub-Registrar, Sembiam, Chennai had made note of the above defective sale in the said document. Since the aforesaid Sami Naidu had executed the deed of made over and accordingly the principal and interest amount having been credited and the balance amount having been cleared and therefore the sum of Rs.940/- had been credited towards their account and further in respect of Nagan being maintained the bullock and ploughing they credited Rs.30/- and the cash amount obtained on those days being Rs.10/- and further agreed to receive Rs.20/-.

23) The Zamindar of Thirumangalam A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and his family members acquired and possessed some properties by way of family settlement (partition) bearing Doc.No.885 of 1937 dated 5.4.1937. But none of the properties shown in the schedule of the said documents reveals about the property owned by them as Zamin Thirumangalam. In the said document it is clearly stated at pages 3 and 4, the Zamindar of Thirumangalam A.K.Ranganatha Iyer started a business in the name and style of M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co., Ltd. for his own earnings and also stated that the said company had loss or had benefit, these act affect only to the said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and not affect his family members.

24) In these circumstances, the Tamil Nadu Govt. Introduced a new Act i.e. Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938. An Act to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists in the province of Madras. The Govt. has also amended the said act i.e. Madras Agriculturists' Relief (Amendment) Act No. XXIII of 1948 dated 25.01.1949. In the meanwhile the Govt. introduced the New Act namely Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 and the said Act came into effect from 2.4.1949 and the main purpose of the Act is to abolish the Estates of the Zamindar and thereby the possession of the properties of the Zamindar were abolished and again the properties were handed over to the real Ryotwari and as per the Act 79, Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have been aboloshed and these petitioners property at 79, Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have handed over to them.

25) Whereas without doing so, subsequent purchaser of 79, Thirumangalam Zamin one Mr.A.K.Ranganathan suppressed all those things before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor and obtained patta by illegal means in respect of the properties situated at No.79, Thirumangalam Zamin by showing the records as if he was also a Ryotwari. It could not be possible under Section 3(d) of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 to get patta by the Zamin and from the above said facts it is very clear that the said A.K.Ranganathan gave some false information with regard to the properties before the Authority concerned and got the patta under Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948. But, the application for issue of patta has to be made under Section 11 only, before the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer would have to decide whether the said property was a ryoti land or not. This is also not considered by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor, as stated above. Really the properties of Melvaram and Gudivaram, ought to have been granted to these petitioners' great grandfather as per the said Act, whereas the authorities failed to do so. The 5th respondent was entitled to be issued Zamin patta only and not ryotiwari patta. But, the said Zamindar was issued patta including for the properties of Agriculturists, Varasithivinayagar Manyam, Lands. Therefore, it is very evident that the patta was wrongly given by the said authority on 31.7.1952 and the patta was granted to the said Zamin without effecting to survey the lands.

26) In the meanwhile the Govt. amended the said Act i.e. Act No.XLIV of 1956 dated 22.05.1957. In this amendment, it is very clearly stated that under Section 3(ii)(e) "the principal or any other landholder and any other person, whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on him by or under this Act".

27) As per the Government order in G.O.No.3157 (Revenue Department) dated 09.12.1950, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Chengalpattu and Settlement Officer of Salem, effected a notice on 4.10.1975 and in the said notice it was pointed out by the authority that some corrections were carried out in memo of Government No.11948 J 1160(2) with regard to the property situated at South West Taluk No.79, Thirumangalam, Chennai District, coming under the Act of Abolition of Zamindaries, which was effected on 2.4.1949 and as per the notice dated 4.10.1973, it was pointed out by the Revenue Authority that the Abolition of Estate Act was affected only against the Zamindar. As per the order of the Government in G.O.No.3157 (Revenue Department) dated 09.12.1950 the details of the Zamin Thirumangalam were not available and also the said G.O. notified in the said Register of Koyambedu Village to an extent of 850.76 and Zamin Thirumangalam part to an extent of 395.28 acres and they could not complete the survey work and they notify the same in the Register. But the Koyambedu land comes under the Inam land. The Zamin Thirumangalam land comes under the Zamin. For both the lands they maintained one Register. Hence the said Act very clearly pointed out that the 'A' Register has to be maintained separately for Zamin Lands.

28) The said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer gave some false information with regard to the property and got patta before the ASO, Chittoor under Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948. But Sections 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the said Act clearly states as follows:

Section 12: Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta;

Section 12(a)(i): all lands (including lanka lands) which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of Section 3, clause (10)(a) of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act, not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land;

Section 12(b)(ii): All land which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, but not including purchase at a sale for arrears or rent, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandary from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date;

29) Therefore on coming to know of the patta wrongly issued to the said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer by the ASO, Chittoor, the Director of Survey and Settlement Officer had initiated SUO-MOTU action and cancelled the patta issued to the said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. The said patta was obtained illegally through Inam Act. The said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer through the power enjoyed by him as Zamindar had influenced the authorities and obtained patta again undue the Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXX of 1963 by referring the deed of settlement bearing Doc.No.981 of 1954 dated 07.09.1954. In fact as a then Zamindar he could not get such patta under the said Act. But obtained patta through influence and for other reasons best known to the Revenue Authorities.

30) The said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer assigned lands by way of settlement to his sons 1) A.R.Krishnamurthy and his wife Lalithammapal and 2) A.R.Rajagopal and his wife Lakshmi bearing Doc.No.981 of 1954 dated 7.9.1954. On perusal of the above said documents it is seen that;

"The total area of the land purchased by the Zamindar of Thirumangalam Perumal Naidu family works about 185.25 acres (around kani 139) comprising 259 (224+35) paimash Nos".

31) During those periods most of Ryots people were illiterate and were also considered as untouchable in the society and were suppressed and oppressed by the Caste Hindu people. By taking advantage of the community which their great grandfather belonged, the said Sami Naidu cheated their great grandfather and their grandfather by way of making the properties of their great grandfather into encumbrances and thereby the said Zamin Sami Naidu crabbed the property of their great grandfather by way of mortgaging.

32) It is seen that in Zamin Thirumangalam part, they could not complete the Survey, since they have acquired lands, which are not, comes under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. It has been stated that there was a difference of measurements of lands to an extent of 21.37 Acres. Whereas the said Govinda Naidu purchased the said Zamin to an extent of 187 acres from Gopal Reddiyar and Rangasamy Naidu purchased the Inam land to an extent of 27.45 acres. The Zamindar of Thirumangalam Kalpagambal purchased the said Zamin land and inam land to an extent of 210.76 acre from the then Zamindar of Thirumangalam Perumal Naidu families. But originally Zamin land was only to an extent of 157.80 acres.

The following table shows that the said Zamindar was issued patta wrongly / mistakenly to an extent of acres 326.02 instead of Acres 157.80.

The said Zamin has obtained patta both under Act XXVI of 1948 and also under Act XXX of 1963 (Inam abolition) which is not possible.

Sl.No. Survey Nos.

Extent Acres Act XXVI of 1948 Names notified in the 'A' Register dated 31.10.1962 Act XXX of 1963 Names notified in the 'A' Register dated 01.06.1973 Names shown ini the 'A' Register as Zamindar's Family and L.Rs.

1 207/1

64.57 M/s.Krishna Tiles and Madras Pvt. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

2. 207/2 01.23 Kuppamma Poosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

3. 207/3 02.08 K.Venkataraja-pillai, Accountant A.S.Muthusamy Zamindar grandsons

4. 207/4 00.60 Soundararaja Iyangar Poosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

5. 207/5 00.74 Soundararaja Iyangar Poosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

6. 207/6 01.52 Soundararaja Iyangar Poosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

7. 207/7 01.42 Rama Nayakkan and others, Servant M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

8. 207/8 00.35 Temple

Temple

9. 207/9 0.74 K.Venkataraja-pillai, Accountant M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

10. 207/10 01.19 K.Venkataraja-pillai, Accountant Lalithambal Zamindar's daughter-in-law

11. 207/11 00.75 Thachan, Karuman S.Indirani Ammal Zamindar's grand daughter

12. 207/12 18.28 M/s.Krishna Tiles and Madras Pvt. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

13. 207/13 08.80 Smt.Lalithambal

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

14. 207/14 11.05 Smt.Lalithambal

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

15. 207/15 00.90 Village People A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar Company

16. 207/16 01.02 Village People M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

17. 207/17 20.56 Smt.N.Kalavathy

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

18. 207/18 00.98 Village People Lalithambal Zamindar's daughter-in-law

19. 207/19 06.91 Smt.Lalithambal

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

20. 207/20 00.94 Smt.Lalithambal

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

21. 207/21 04.92 Smt.Lalithambal

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

22. 207/22 14.52 A.R.Rajagopalan

Zamindar son

23. 207/23 14.85 A.R.Krishna-moorthy

Zamindar son

24. 207/24 06.12

1)A.R.Krishna-moorthy

2)A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar sons

25. 207/25 03.35 Smt.N.Kalavathy

Zamindar's daughter-in-law

26. 208/1 0.33 Pidari Temple M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

27. 208/2 0.59

1)Dukri Ramar Naikkar

2)Ragava Naikkar M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

28. 208/3 0.38 Thachan, Karuman M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

29. 209/1 0.33 Varasithi Vinayakar Temple M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd. Zamindar Company

30. 209/2 2.38

1)K.Venkatarasapillai 2) K.Ponna- pillai M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

31. 209/3 0.71 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

32. 209/4 0.83 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

33. 210/1 0.18 Village People Rajagopalan Zamindar son

34. 210/2 0.56 Panchangam V.S.Ranganathan Zamindar

35. 210/3 2.81 A.R.Krishna-moorthy Zamindar son

36. 211 0.22

Road/Battai

37. 212 0.72

38. 213 0.97

Road/Battai

39. 214 3.00

Road/Battai

40. 215 0.63

Road/Battai

41. 216 0.87

Road/Battai

42. 217 0.61

Road/Battai

43. 218 0.57

Road/Battai

44. 219 0.36

Road/Battai

45. 220/1 0.84

Road/Battai

46. 220/2 2.88 A.S.Muthusami, Managing Trustee, A.K.Ranganathan Zamindar grandson and Zamindar

47. 220/3 1.69 N.Ethiraj

48. 221/1 5.80

49. 221/2 0.80 Smt.A.Lakshmi Zamindar's daughter-in-law

50. 221/3 5.41 Smt.A.Lakshmi Zamindar's daughter-in-law

51. 222/1 1.29 Govindan

52. 222/2 2.32 Chinna Munusamy & Four Others

53. 223/1 21.85 Smt.A.Lakshmi Zamindar's daughter-in-law

54. 223/2 0.58 N.Ethiraj

55. 223/3 0.35 Balammal

1) A.S.Muthusamy

2)A.S.Anantha-raman Zamindar grandsons

56. 223/4 0.49

57. 223/5 6.72 A.S.Muthusami, Managing Trustee, A.K.Ranganathan Zamindar grandson and Zamindar

58. 224/1 6.30 Chinna Munusamy & Four Others

59. 224/2 0.87 N.Ethiraj

60. 225 2.86

61. 226/1 6.64

1) Loganatha Naikkar

2) Annamalai Naikkar

3) Panchala Naikkar

62. 226/2 0.97

63. 227/1 11.17 A.S.Muthusami, Managing Trustee, A.K.Ranganathan Zamindar grandson and Zamindar

64. 227/2 0.16

65. 227/3 1.51 Thirumangalees-

warar Temple A.R.Krishna-murthy Zamindar Son

66. 227/4 11.27 A.R.Krishna-moorthy Zamindar Son

67. 228/1 1.60

1) Loganatha Naikkar

2) Annamalai Naikkar

3) Panchala Naikkar

68. 228/2 1.56

69. 228/3 0.74 Muwuttuw Manyam Kutty Vagaira Housing Board

70. 228/4 0.09

1) Loganatha Naikkar

2) Annamalai Naikkar

3) Panchala Naikkar

71. 228/5 2.00 A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar Son

72. 228/6 0.11 Chinna Munusamy & Four Others

73. 228/7 2.42

1) Loganatha Naikkar

2) Annamalai Naikkar

3) Panchala Naikkar

74. 228/8 0.37 A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar Son

75. 228/9 0.51 A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar Son

76. 229/1 8.52 A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar Son

77. 229/2 6.71 A.R.Rajagopalan Zamindar

78. 230/1 2.03

1) Dukri Ramar Naikkar

2) Ragava Naikkar

1) A.R.Krishna murthy 2)A.R.Raja-gopalan Zamindar Sons

79. 230/2 1.30 Thirumangalees-

warar Temple

1) A.R.Krishna murthy 2)A.R.Raja-gopalan Zamindar Sons

80. 230/3 0.59 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

81. 230/4 0.78

1)K.Venkatarasa-pillai 2)K.Ponna-

pillai M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

82. 230/5 0.36 A.K.Ranganathan Zamindar

83. 230/6 1.00

84. 230/7 27.66 A.K.Ranganathan Zamindar

85. 230/8 5.73 M/s.Krishna Tiles and Madras Pvt. Ltd.

Zamindar Company

86. 231/1 9.73

1) A.R.Krishna murthy 2)A.R.Raja-gopalan Zamindar Sons

87. 231/2 1.23 Village People

88. 232 0.61

89. 233 12.51

90. 234 7.26 Porumpokku River From the above table, it is very evident that the Zamindar has obtained patta in different names as if he was a servant, accountant, clerk, company, village people etc.

33) If the Govt. implemented the said Act of XXVI of 1948 in letter and spirit in respect of the Zamin lands in Thirumangalam, the people belonging to the suppressed and illiterate would get patta as earlier. But the Zamindar had illegally and by misusing the powers enjoyed by them as Zamindari, got patta to the subject land in their name, their legal heirs and also in the name of the company. This great Nation got independence before 63 years, but the said Act came into force much earlier. They are troubling them in many ways. The schedule caste peoples (Ryots) are still living in the huts.

34) The property No.79 of Thirumangalam Zamin was actually taken by the Government as per the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 and as per the report of Salem Settlement Officer, dated 4.10.1973 the full details of the properties was not available and subsequently the details of the properties were prepared by the same Officer without measuring the properties, by using and by producing some false records by the said Zamindar A.K.Ranganathan and thereby the Revenue Authorities acted against the said Abolition Act and the authorities concerned gave the patta in the name of A.K.Ranganathan and his family members. As per the statistical report dated 4.10.1973 the old village Thirumangalam was controlled by Zamin Administration and the full details of the properties were not available and on knowing this fact on 7.5.2003, these petitioners made a representation and thereafter made several representations to the authorities. But all the authorities replied evasively and did not take any action to implement the said Act till date.

35) The 1st petitioner made a representation dated 18.6.1991 to the CMDA requesting to furnish the details of Thirumangalam Village. But it was replied to him stating that, "it must be clearly understood that this is only by way of information and no sub-division or construction of building or development in the land in question is valid in law unless planning permission is applied for and duly and granted for that sub-division, construction or development". Therefore it is very clear that the CMDA very well aware of the subject land and without considering the fact and also the pending of the above said W.P. and also the Writ Petition No.12613 of 2001 filed by 6th respondent granted planning permission to M/s.Ozone Projects Ltd. He has also made a representation dated 09.7.1991 to the Chennai District Collector requesting to furnish the details of paimash Nos. and Survey Nos. in Thirumangalam Village, Chennai. But the said Collector has rejected the request and replied that paimash Nos. and Survey Nos. in Tirumangalam Village, Chennai were not available in his office.

36) The Govt. introduced the said Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 for the purpose of offering the land to the Ryotwaries and the very purpose of the said Act has been defeated by the Revenue Authorities by way of issuing patta to the Zamin on the false information furnished by the Zamin. The subject land in 79, Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have been handed over to their great grandfather and subsequently to their legal heirs. Whereas the Revenue Authorities did not do.

37) These petitioners have made many requests to Revenue Authorities to implement the Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotiwari) Act XXVI of 1948 and the amendments issued by the Govt. from time to time. But they did not do so. Therefore, they have to implement the said Act and issue patta to these petitioners and also to other legal heirs of Mudichur Alavattan."

29. On the facts stated herein above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had rightly come to the conclusion that the whole of the land was not sold or purchased in the name of wife in the year 1944. This entitled the petitioners to grant of patta and furthermore, the Settlement Officer as per the amended rule, had the jurisdiction to condone the delay of 30 days, which he failed to exercise.

30. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the power exercised by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, in fact, is suo-motu power under Section 5(2), which entitled him to deal with the matter in the interest of justice. Therefore, it was not open to the first respondent to interfere with the exercise of suo-motu power, when substantially justice was done to the parties.

31. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Once suo-motu powers were exercised to challenge the order passed by the authority under the Act, the exercise of power has to be in accordance with law. The reasoning given by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to hold that the appeal was wrongly rejected as time barred, on the face of it, is not sustainable in law, as already observed. The first respondent was right in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the second respondent to set aside the order, passed 46 years back against which remedy of statutory appeal was available, as the power under Section 5(2) can be exercised only in case there is no remedy of appeal. Once remedy statutory appeal was available, it was not open to the second respondent to exercise suo-motu power to interfere with the order in exercise of powers under Sectioin 5(2) of the Act.

32. The reasoning given for setting aside of the order of appellate authority, dismissing the appeal as time barred is also perverse. It is not the case of the petitioners that any application for condonation of delay was moved, nor any explanation was given in the appeal for condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause. Therefore, the Government Order, giving powers to the Settlement Officer to condone the delay, also could not be of any help to the petitioners.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court, in the case of Mariabackiammal (deceased) by her legal heirs and 3 others vs. The District Forest Officer, Madurai North Division, Dindigul, reported in (1990-2-L.W. 478), contended that if a ryot, who is entitled to patta under the Act, is not given patta, the character of the land will not change, and it will continue to be a ryoti land. It was also contended that the right of the petitioners would not be denied merely because patta was issued in favour A.K.Ranganathan in the year 1952.

34. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, as jurisdiction vesting with the authorities, was duly exercised and patta granted in favour of A.K.Ranganathan in the year 1952. The land, therefore, could not be said to be ryoti land, entitling the petitioners to claim the relief under Section 11 of the Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, has no relevance to the facts of the present case.

35. The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam, reported in (98 L.W. 849) also cannot be of any help, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real nature of the land is not ousted under Section 64C by reason of the Settlement Officer's decision to grant or refuse to grant a patta under Section 11 r/w the proviso to Section 3(d) of the Act.

36. In this view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the nature of the land, as the order passed under Section 12, could have been challenged only by way of appeal, or the parties could get their rights decided in the Civil Court. It was certainly not open to the second respondent to reopen the matter after lapse of 46 years, to hold that the order passed in the year 1952 was bad in law, specially when he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order in exercise of powers under Section 5(2), as the reading of Section itself shows that power under Section 5 can be exercised to interfere with the order against which no appeal lies to tribunal. The order under Section 12 is appealable before tribunal under Section 15 of the Act.

37. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.1296 of 1986 in the case of David Pillai vs. The Settlement Officer, Madurai, decided on 18.07.1989 and the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai vs. M.Arumugam, reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 1201 to contend that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, has the power to revise or cancel the order passed by the Settlement Officer in exercise of suo-motu power under Section 5(2) of the Act. Those judgment also cannot advance the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has the jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Officer in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but exercise of power can be as per the settled principles of law. The order which is in consonance with settled law cannot be interfered with in exercise of suo-motu power.

38. The findings recorded by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement are contrary to the settled principles of law, therefore, the first respondent was right in setting aside the order.

39. On consideration of the matter, I find that the learned Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, was fully justified in reversing the order passed by the second respondent. The reasons recorded are based on materials on record, and do not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.

40. Consequently, finding no merit in these petitions, the two writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. No costs. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

ar To

1. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur

4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court