Madras High Court
Samuel vs Karuppaswamy (Deceased) on 22 April, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 22.4.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
W.P.No.9139 of 2003,
W.P.No.32273 of 2004,
W.P.M.P.Nos.39071 and 39072 of 2004
and
W.V.M.P.No.325 of 2006
W.P.No.9139 of 2003
1. Samuel
2. Annakili
3. Thulasi Ammal
4. Subbalakshmi Petitioners
vs.
1. Karuppaswamy (deceased)
2. M.Palanisamy
3. The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore.
4. The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
5. Kannal
6. Lakshmi
7. Arukkani
8. Rangasamy
9. Ganesan
10. Mallika
11. Shanthi
(R5 to R11 substituted as
L.Rs of the deceased R1
as per order dated 16.3.2009
in W.P.M.P.No.73 of 2009 in
W.P.No.9139 of 2003) Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 herein to conduct an enquiry pertaining to the ayan patta issued in favour of the first respondent as directed by this court in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 dated 2nd December 1997.
For petitioner : Mrs.Asha for
M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For R2 : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.A.Nizar Ahmed
For R3 and R4 : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya,
Government Advocate
For R5 to R11 : No appearance.
W.P.No.32273 of 2004
M.Palanisamy Petitioners
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by Special Commissioner
and Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner for Land
Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
4. Samuel
5. Annakili
6. Thulasi Ammal
7. Subbalakshmi
(R4 to R7 impleaded as per order
dated 8.9.2005 in
W.P.M.P.No.22540/2005)
8. Arumugam
9. N.Palanisamy
10. D.Raman
11. C.Murugan
12. Vijayababu
13. K.Sampath
14. R.Suseela
15. R.Rangammal
16. Thulasi
17. Pazhanathal
18. Kittaan
19. Ramathal
20. C.Kaliammal
21. K.Rangan
22. S.Vasanthi
23. R.Nirmala
24. R.Kannammal
25. R.Poovathal
26. Kuppathal
27. Maruthachalam
28. K.Arukkani
29. R.Ponnammal
30. P.Kullammal
31. Pachiyammal
32. Vijayalakshmi
33. Selvi
34. Marathal
35. Saraswathi
36. R.Rasamani
37. Kanaga
38. Rangathal
39. Thulasimani
40. Murugan
41. Marathal
42. Parvathy
43. Velumani
44. Ammasai
45. Nachammal
46. Valliammal
47. Mallika
48. Rasathi
49. Ammukutti
50. Subramanian
51. Marammal
52. Loganathan
53. R.Saraswathi
54. K.Jothimani
55. S.Vani
56. R.Chitra
57. R.Sarojini
58. M.Bannari
59. Neelavathi
60. Maragatham
61. Vellingiri
62. Murugammal
63. Palani
64. P.Murugan
(R8 to R64 impleaded as per
order dated 22.9.2006 in
W.P.M.P.No.4415 of 2006 in
W.P.No.32273 of 2004) Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.281/Revenue Ni.Mu.1(2) Department dated 10.6.2004 and the order of the third respondent in R.C.Va.Pa.8A/93(A1) dated 29.9.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith grant patta to the petitioner for 5.04 acres in S.No.709/2 and 709/3 Kallapatti Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.A.Nizar Ahmed
For R1 to R3 : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya,
Government Advocate
For R4 to R7 : Mrs.Asha for
M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For R8 to R64 : No appearance.
COMMON ORDER
As both the writ petitions relate to the very same property and the nature of dispute between the parties also appears to be similar, both the writ petitions were taken up for common disposal.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 and the second respondent in W.P.No.9139 of 2003 viz., M.Palanisamy would contend as follows:-
a) Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari got assignment of land from the Government of Tamil Nadu measuring 6.14 acres out of 7.42 acres in S.Nos.709/2 and 709/3 of Kallapatti Village, Coimbatore. Both of them sold their respective shares in favour of one Rangan son of Raman under two documents dated 5.7.1956. Rangan son of Raman, in turn, sold the entire extent of 6.14 acres in favour of Karuppasamy son of Marutha Madhavi under a registered sale deed dated 19.7.1967. After a lapse of 30 years from the date of original assignment, the Additional Collector directed the Tahsildar, Coimbatore to issue ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy. Accordingly, ayan patta was granted in favour of Karuppasamy. A part of the property was sold by Karuppasamy in favour of Kumarasamy Gounder, Chandrammal and the joint purchasers Pappannan, Chinnappan and Selvaraj. The District Collector issued proceedings dated 9.7.1990 cancelling the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy. The said order was quashed by the High Court in W.P.No.6131 of 1991 filed by Karuppasamy.
b) Civil proceedings were initiated by Karuppasamy as against the encroachers in O.S.No.884 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore to evict the encroachers from the property. Police protection and Revenue protection were accorded to the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed to evict the encroachers in E.P.No.256 of 1983 in O.S.No.884 of 1979. A direction also was issued by this court in W.P.No.11752 of 1990 to accord police and revenue protection to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant of delivery of possession. A direction was issued in W.P.No.964 of 1990 filed by the trespassers before this court to consider the application filed by the encroachers praying for grant of patta.
c) The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, having misread the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.6131 of 1991 and W.P.No.11752 of 1990, directed the District Collector to initiate appropriate action for resuming the land. Karuppasamy filed W.P.No.2813 of 1992 challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. Though the writ petition was dismissed, the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department was quashed and the Government authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law in Writ Appeal No.1214 of 1997 preferred by Karuppasamy.
d) M.Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 entered into an agreement for sale with M.Karuppasamy for purchase of an extent of 5.04 acres out of 6.14 acres owned by Karuppasamy. Palanisamy filed O.S.No.615 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore against Karuppasamy for specific performance. A decree was passed in favour of Palanisamy and the appeal preferred by Karuppasamy in A.S.No.155 of 2000 was also dismissed as withdrawn.
e) The District Collector, Coimbatore, all of a sudden, communicated a non-speaking order passed by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.1999. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, by the impugned order, directed the District Collector of Coimbatore to resume the property and take action to grant assignment to the encroachers if they were found to be eligible persons. M.Palanisamy now challenges the aforesaid orders passed by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, and communicated by the District Collector, Coimbatore, in W.P.No.32273 of 2004.
3. The contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.9139 of 2003 and respondents 4 to 64 in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 is as follows:-
The assignment in favour of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari was a conditional one inasmuch as the assignees or their legal heirs, who belong to Harijan community, were prohibited from selling the same to the persons other than the depressed classes. They sold the property to one Mr.Rangan, who subsequently sold the same to Karuppasamy when actually the possession of the lands were with 200 occupants of Harijan community. The Government has authority to resume the lands assigned to Harijans when the conditions relating to disposal of the property were breached. The order passed by the Additional Collector directing the Tahsildar to grant ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy is not legal. As per the direction of this court in W.A.No.1214 of 1997, the residents of Athikuttai, Annanagar, Coimbatore filed several representations to the Tahsildar and the District Collector, Coimbatore to conduct enquiry about the grant of patta earlier and its cancellation thereafter. There was no response from the Government side. Therefore, the aforesaid residents of Athikuttai, Annanagar, Coimbatore have filed W.P.No.9139 of 2003 praying for a direction to the Tahsildar and District Collector, Coimbatore to conduct an enquiry pertaining to the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy as directed by this court in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 dated 2.12.1997 and pass appropriate orders.
4. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the Commissioner for Land Administration and the District Collector, Coimbatore have contended as follows:-
It is true that an extent of 6.14 acres of land in S.No.709/2 and 709/3 in Kallapatti Village in Coimbatore North Taluk was assigned in favour of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore vide his proceedings dated 25.6.1936. After the demise of the above original assignees, their legal heirs sold their respective shares of lands in favour of one Rangan under two documents dated 5.7.1956. Rangan sold the entire extent in favour of Karuppasamy under a registered sale deed dated 19.7.1967. The conditional patta was changed into ayan patta vide proceedings issued by the then Additional Collector, Coimbatore. The Collector of Coimbatore in his proceedings dated 3.5.1991 cancelled the order issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore granting ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy for the reason that there was no provision either in the Revenue Standing Orders or in any other Rules conferring power on the Sub Collector or their subordinates to change the conditional patta into ayan patta. The land assigned under Depressed Class Conditions (DC conditions) should not be transferred to any person other than the Scheduled Caste on any account. Karuppasamy, who purchased the assigned lands in 1967, sold an extent of 1.1 acres to the Caste Hindus and thereby he violated the conditions of Revenue Standing Orders. The Government, having rejected the representation made by M.Palanisamy, ordered to resume 6.14 acres of land in Kallapatti Village, Coimbatore North Taluk in S.No.709/2 and 709/3 since Karuppasamy violated the assignment conditions and the District Collector, Coimbatore was directed to assign the lands to eligible persons. The Government is entitled to resume the lands for eventual disposal. The lands changed many hands among the Depressed Classes and finally it came to the hands of Karuppasamy son of Marutha Madhavi. Ayan patta was issued by the Tahsildar by mistake of fact and without applying his mind to the recitals of the conditions in the patta. Coming to know of the erroneous orders passed by the Tahsildar and the motive of Karuppasamy, the District Collector, Coimbatore took cognizance of the transaction and cancelled the ayan patta issued in the name of the original owners and changed the status of the land as "assessed waste poramboke" vide his proceedings dated 9.7.1990. As far as the conditional assignment is concerned, there is no limitation or statutory period. The limitation of 30 years imposed by the Board of Revenue earlier was rescinded subsequently by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition filed by M.Palanisamy.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for M.Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 would submit that the Government has no authority to resume the lands when the DC condition patta was changed into ayan patta. Cancellation of ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy was already quashed by this court and the same has reached finality. It is the admitted case that the subject property was transferred only among the Depressed Class. Karuppasamy son of Marutha Madhavi also belong to Scheduled Caste as per the case of the Government. Only after the conditional patta issued in the name of the original owners was changed into ayan patta, Karuppasamy entered into an agreement with M.Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004. The Government has failed to note that Karuppasamy sold away the subject property to various persons belonging to Caste Hindus only after he got ayan patta in his name. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law, he contends.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the residents of Athikuttai, Annanagar, Coimbatore, the petitioners in W.P.No.9139 of 2003 would submit referring to the original assignment produced by the Government that no time limit was prescribed for the adherence of the DC conditions imposed in the assignment by the Government. As the conditions imposed are found to be perpetual in nature, the property cannot be sold away even by the successors in interest to a Caste Hindu. Further, ayan patta should not have been issued as the DC conditions found in the assignment are perpetual in nature. The Government authorities should enquire into the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar based on the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Coimbatore to change the DC condition patta into ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy.
7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Government authorities would submit that no ayan patta could be granted in respect of the lands assigned with perpetual DC conditions. The Government authorities have right to resume the properties assigned if the DC conditions found in the assignment were violated either by the assignee or by the successors in interest. As Karuppasamy has alienated the subject property to various persons belonging to Caste Hindu, the Government authorities have rightly passed an order directing the District Collector, Coimbatore to resume the lands and to take action to grant assignment in favour of the eligible encroachers.
8. The records submitted before this court would disclose that the Tahsildar, Coimbatore vide his proceedings dated 25.6.1936 assigned 6.14 acres out of 7.42 acres in S.No.709/2 and 709/3 in favour of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore dated 12.3.1930. As per the Revenue Standing Orders 15(41)4(i) assignments of the ordinary land or valuable land shall be subject to the conditions that the lands shall not be alienated to any persons in any manner before the expiry of ten years from the date of grant. Thereafter, the property assigned to the Scheduled Caste could be alienated only to the other members of the very same caste. But, there can be no alienation of the assignment to the Scheduled Caste to any other community people.
9. If the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or ceases to be owned by other members of their class after the expiry of ten years owing to sale, the grant is liable to be resumed by the Government who is entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without payment of any compensation or repayment of the purchase money as per the Revenue Standing Order 15(41)4(iii). The Collector is empowered to transfer the poramboke lands to ayan upto 2.2.5 Hectares in each case without the special sanction of the Commissioner of Land Administration as per the Board Standing Order 15(44)(ii).
10. On a careful perusal of the original assignment granted to Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari produced by the Government authorities, it is found that the said assignment has been made by the Government with perpetual DC condition. No period of limitation of the DC condition imposed has been prescribed in the assignment.
11. The Government authorities, in their counter, have categorically admitted that after the demise of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari, their legal heirs sold 6.14 acres of land to one Rangan son of Raman belonging to Scheduled Caste under the registered sale deed dated 5.7.1956. The said Rangan also sold the very same property under the sale deed dated 19.7.1967 to Karuppasamy who also belongs to Scheduled Caste as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar in Na.Ka.No.33201/78/A1 dated 24.10.1978.
12. It is the admitted case that the Additional Collector vide proceedings No.188160/78-B2 dated 25.9.1978 directed the Tahsildar, Coimbatore to issue ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Coimbatore issued ayan patta to Karuppasamy vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.33201/78/A1 dated 24.10.1978. While granting ayan patta by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore pursuant to the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Coimbatore, no condition was imposed in the ayan patta granted to Karuppasamy.
13. Karuppasamy entered into a registered sale agreement with M.Palanisamy the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 on 19.6.1987. It is to be noted that neither the assignees nor the successors in interest sold away even a bit of land assigned originally in favour of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari to any one outside the Scheduled Caste community. Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari and their legal heirs enjoyed the property without any alienation right from 25.6.1936 to 5.7.1956. Only on 5.7.1956, the legal heirs of Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari sold away the entire extent of 6.14 acres of land assigned to them to one Rangan son of Raman who also admittedly belonged to Scheduled Caste. Rangan enjoyed the property right from 5.7.1956 to 19.7.1967. Thereafter, Karuppasamy son of Marutha Madhavi purchased the entire extent of property from Rangan. As already pointed out by this court, the The Tahsildar had admitted that Karuppasamy also belongs to Scheduled Caste. Karuppasamy wanted to get rid of the DC condition imposed in the assignment granted by the Government to enable him to sell away the property to other community people. The Additional Collector, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.188160/78-B2 dated 25.9.1978, directed the Tahsildar, Coimbatore to grant ayan patta. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Coimbatore cancelled the DC condition patta and issued ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy vide the above stated proceedings.
14. Inasmuch as Karuppasamy sold away 1.10 acres out of 6.14 acres to three persons viz., Kumarasamy Gounder, Chandrammal and the joint purchasers Pappannan, Chinnappan and Selvaraj and entered into an agreement of sale with M.Palanisamy with respect to the remaining extent of 5.04 acres after ayan patta was granted, the contention on the side of the Government authorities that there was violation of DC condition by Karuppasamy does not stand to reason.
15. The Collector of Coimbatore passed an order arbitrarily vide his proceedings in 15971/90/A1 dated 9.7.1990 cancelling the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy, treating the lands as assessed waste. It is to be noted that DC condition patta was issued as early as on 25.6.1936. The perpetual DC condition patta was cancelled and ayan patta was granted in favour of Karuppasamy who also admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, there was no provocation for the District Collector to cancel the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy treating the lands as assessed waste.
16. The properties were originally poramboke lands belonging to the Government. Out of the reservation of poramboke land, the Government assigned the subject lands to Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari. The Collector is empowered to transfer poramboke land to ayan to an extent of 2.2.5 hectares in each case without the special sanction of the Commissioner of Land Administration. The Additional Collector also exercises the powers of the Collector. Therefore, it is too far fetched to argue that the Additional Collector has no authority to transfer the subject land to ayan.
17. Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 produced the proceedings in B.P.Rt.2269(B) Board of Revenue (Land Revenue) dated 25.5.1973. That was a case where an assignment of land with DC condition to a Scheduled Caste in Kongur Village in Dharapuram Taluk was given as free gift to a trustee of a Gurukulam, who constructed a mill in the said land violating the DC conditions. But, the Board of Revenue based on the proposals sent by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore held that there was no necessity to interfere with such sale.
18. Further, this court quashed the proceedings of the District Collector dated 9.7.1990 cancelling the ayan patta and allowed the writ petition filed by Karuppasamy in W.P.No.6131 of 1991. Inasmuch as the ayan patta granted to Karuppasamy by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore vide his proceedings dated 24.10.1978 was sustained by this court in W.P.No.6131 of 1991, the Government authorities have no power to resume the lands without legally cancelling the ayan patta granted to Karuppasamy.
19. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government has completely misread the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.6131 of 1991 filed by Karuppasamy and W.P.No.964 of 1990 filed by the residents of Athikuttai, Annanagar village, Coimbatore and directed the District Collector of Coimbatore to initiate appropriate action for resuming the land, as though cancellation order was still valid inspite of the fact that orders passed by the District Collector cancelling the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy was quashed by this court in W.P.No.6131 of 1991. In fact, there was no direction to the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to grant patta in favour of the villagers of Athikuttai. There was only a direction while dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.964 of 1990 to consider the applications submitted by the villagers of Athikuttai and pass appropriate orders. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, has proceeded wrong on the basis that cancellation of patta was still valid and that there was a direction to grant patta to the villagers of Athikuttai.
20. The proceedings issued by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department vide G.O.Ms.(3D) No.31 Revenue Department, dated 25.11.1991 was also quashed as per the clarificatory orders passed by this court in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 dated 18.12.1997.
21. While quashing the proceedings issued by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in G.O.Ms.(3D) No.31 Revenue Department dated 25.11.1991 directing the District Collector, Coimbatore to take action to resume the subject lands, this court, in W.A.No.1214 of 1997, directed the Government authorities to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
22. Karuppasamy had executed a registered agreement of sale to Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 on 19.6.1987. He filed a suit in O.S.No.615 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore as against Karuppasamy and obtained a decree for specific performance. The appeal in A.S.No.155 of 2000 filed by Karuppasamy aggrieved by the decree for specific performance passed by the District Munsif, Coimbatore was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2004. Now, it is submitted that Execution Proceedings initiated by Palanisamy is pending disposal.
23. Inasmuch as the decree obtained by Palanisamy as against Karuppasamy has attained finality and the execution of sale deed in favour of Palanisamy with respect to the subject property alone is pending, Karuppasamy lost his interest and therefore, he did not appear before the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to contest the claim with regard to ayan patta granted in his favour. The impugned proceedings issued by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department would read that the petitioner M.Palanisamy, in fact, made a representation dated 17.12.1999 informing the Government authorities that he alone was interested in the subject matter and that the resumption of land was untenable as there was no violation of any condition. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, having found that Karuppasamy did not appear for hearing inspite of the opportunity given to him, passed the impugned order directing the District Collector, Coimbatore to resume the lands and initiate action to grant assignment in favour of the eligible encroachers if the encroachments were found unobjectionable.
24. Firstly, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department failed to see that the subject property was disposed of by Karuppasamy only after the Tahsildar, Coimbatore granted ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy pursuant to the directions of the Additional Collector, Coimbatore changing the DC condition patta into ayan patta. Karuppasamy also entered into a registered agreement of sale with M.Palanisamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 only after the ayan patta was granted in favour of Karuppasamy. When ayan patta was not cancelled and the cancellation of ayan patta in fact was quashed by this court, the question of resumption of the land as per the impugned proceedings passed by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department does not arise for consideration. The resumption of land can be resorted to by the Government authorities only when the DC condition imposed on the original assignee was violated. In the instant case, the alienation of the property had been done only among the Scheduled Caste people. Karuppasamy, who also belongs to Scheduled Caste, alienated the property to the Caste Hindu community people only after ayan patta was granted. No condition was imposed by the authorities while granting ayan patta to Karuppasamy. Ayan pattadhar becomes the absolute owner of the property.
25. Further, it is found that the District Collector, Coimbatore issued proceedings cancelling the ayan patta only on 9.7.1990 after a lapse of 12 years from the date of issuance of ayan patta in favour of Karuppasamy on 24.10.1978. Having granted ayan patta facilitating Karuppasamy to alienate the property without any restrictions, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department cannot now take a stand that ayan patta was by mistake issued and the alienation made by Karuppasamy even after such patta was issued violated the DC conditions imposed on the original assignees. Therefore, resumption of lands to an extent of 6.14 acres in S.Nos.709/2 and 709/3 assigned originally to Kitta Madari and Chinnasami Madari by the impugned order does not have any legal basis.
26. There was no direction in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 that the Tahsildar, Coimbatore and the District Collector, Coimbatore should conduct enquiry pertaining to the ayan patta issued in favour of Karuppasamy. This court directed in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 to the Government authorities in the above Writ Appeal to pass appropriate orders with respect to ayan patta granted to Karuppasamy after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
27. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department was pleased to pass the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.281/Revenue(Ni.Mu.1(2)) Department dated 10.6.2004 directing the Collector to resume the subject lands when the ayan patta issued in the name of Karuppasamy was not cancelled after due enquiry giving opportunities to the parties concerned as directed by this court in W.A.No.1214 of 1997 dated 2.12.1997. As no enquiry was held and ayan patta issued in the name of Karuppasamy was not cancelled so far, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department has no authority to pass the aforesaid impugned order.
28. In view of the above,the impugned order passed by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in G.O.Ms.No.281/Revenue(Ni.Mu.1(2)) Department dated 10.6.2004 is quashed. The District Collector, Coimbatore is given liberty to pass appropriate orders as to the cancellation or otherwise of the ayan patta already granted to Karuppasamy after giving sufficient opportunity to Karuppasamy, M.Palanisamy and the villagers of Athikuttai, Annanagar, Coimbatore.
29. The petitioner M.Palanisamy is entitled to apply for issuance of patta in his name after he becomes the absolute owner of the property on execution of the sale deed either by the court concerned or by the vendor Karuppasamy. But, it is made clear that he cannot pray for grant of patta as on date as he has not yet become the absolute owner of the subject property inasmuch as he is yet to purchase the property. In terms of the above, both the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
ssk.
To
1. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
3. The District Collector, Coimbatore.
3. The Tahsildar, Coimbatore