Madras High Court
S.Ramachandran vs The District Collector
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.25863/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
26.07.2022 24.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.25863 OF 2014
AND
W.M.P. NO. 2075 OF 2022
1. S.Ramachandran
2. S.Arumugam .. Petitioners
- Vs -
1. The District Collector
Kanchipuram District
Kanchipuram.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Kanchipuram District
Kanchipuram.
3. The Tahsildar
Chengalpet Taluk
Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.
4. The Vice President
Village Panchayat
Kunnavakkam Village
Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.25863/2014
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent herein dated 4.5.2012 passed in R.C.
47388/2003/B1 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. V.Ayyadurai, SC, for
Mr. K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr. Silambanan, AAG,
Assisted by Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl. GP
ORDER
The ryotwari patta, which is alleged to have been given to the father of the petitioner under Outside the Scope of Inam Abolition Act, and has been passed over to the petitioners, which was cancelled by the 2 nd respondent at the behest of the 4th respondent is put in issue before this Court in the present writ petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that Eachankaranai Village was notified as Inam village and taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 15.4.1965 and ryotwari settlement was introduced. It is the further averment of the petitioners that their father had applied for ryotwari patta in respect of survey 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 Field Nos.36/1 and 36/3 measuring 0.41.5 and 2.88.0 hectares on the ground that the petitioners and their forefathers were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Pursuant to the report submitted by the 3 rd respondent and after perusing the records, which revealed that possession was with the petitioners’ forefathers and there being no counter claim made or objections filed, the Sub Collector of Chengalpet granted ryotwari patta vide proceedings dated 8.11.1977. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have been paying the kist ever since regularly and are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above lands for several decades.
3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that due to enmity between the petitioners and some section of the Villagers, especially the 4th respondent, who was then the Vice President, the classification of the lands were sought to be reversed by dispossessing the petitioners and to achieve the same, W.P. No.14000/2011 was filed before this Court for cancellation of patta granted to the petitioners and also to restore the classification. This Court, vide order dated 17.6.2011 directed respondents 1 and 2 therein to conduct proper enquiry after giving notice and pass appropriate orders.
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014
4. Pursuant to the same, after enquiry, the 2nd respondent, vide the impugned proceedings dated 4.5.2012, had cancelled the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners and also directed the 3 rd respondent to effect necessary changes in the village accounts. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the 2nd respondent is not vested with jurisdiction to cancel the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners by the Sub Collector. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.O. Ms. No.1300 Revenue Dept., dated 30.04.1971 has not vested jurisdiction with the 2nd respondent and that being the case, passing of the impugned order by the 2nd respondent is wholly unsustainable and illegal.
6. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the 4th respondent has no locus standi to question the ryotwari patta granted to the petitioners and their father as the 4th respondent is neither a 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 resident of the said village nor a person interested in the said lands. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that though notice for enquiry has been issued by the 1st respondent, before whom the petitioners have made their submissions and submitted documentary materials, however, the 2nd respondent has passed the order, which is unsustainable and it reveals total non- application of mind on the part of the respondents. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the spot inspection alleged to have been conducted by the authorities of the 2nd respondent, no notice was granted to the petitioners, which is in stark violation of principles of natural justice. The right of the petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution has been impinged by the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned order suffers the vice of illegality, arbitrariness and irrationality and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the ryotwari patta has been allowed to the father of the petitioners under the Outside the Scope of Inam Abolition Act (for short ‘the Act’) and in line with G.O. Ms. No.370, Revenue dated 4.10.1974. Though as per 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 the said Government Order, at the relevant point of time the 2nd respondent was not empowered to cancel the ryotwari patta granted under the Act, however, the provisions in the said Government Order stood modified by G.O. Ms. No.1147, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 6.10.1983. Only exercising powers under the said Government Order, the 2nd respondent had cancelled the ryotwari patta granted to the father of the petitioners.
8. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the continuous possession of lands by the petitioners have not been proved through requisite documentary evidence and further, the enjoyment alleged by the petitioners have also not been established, as the spot inspection conducted by the respondents reveal that the lands have not been put to use by the petitioners for agricultural purposes. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that not only the land is not in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, but it has not been put to use and it is lying vacant.
9. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the petitioners did not challenge the order in W.P. No.14000 of 2011 and 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 submitted themselves the enquiry and the enquiry having been conducted in a proper manner by considering all the materials and relevant records, the petitioners cannot now question the authority and jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order.
10. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that appellate power has been conferred on respondents 1 and 2 in G.O. Ms. No.1147, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 6.10.1983 and, therefore, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, the proper course open to the petitioners is to go before the appellate authority, viz., respondents 1 and 2 and they cannot come before this Court and seek the relief. Further, the order in W.P. No.14000 of 2011 also having directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders and the petitioners have not filed proper materials to substantiate the continuous possession and enjoyment of the land nor submitted materials to prove the title, the grant of ryotwari patta under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Land) Act, 1963 was rightly cancelled by the 2nd respondent.
7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014
11. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that merely because there was no rival claim would not be a ground for the petitioners to claim ryotwari patta as the said land is a government land and any errors committed by the authorities is always liable to be corrected and the lands restored back to the government. The petitioners having not proved their entitlement to the said lands through materials, the ryotwari patta granted in favour of their predecessors-in-title was duly cancelled after following the due process of law and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the order impugned herein.
12. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners contending, in essence, what has been contended in the affidavit and in addition thereto, it is submitted by the petitioners that assuming without admitting that the ryotwari patta was granted under Outside the Scope of Inam Abolition Act, jurisdiction is not vested with the 2nd respondent to cancel the patta granted by the Sub Collector, as no revision has been filed either by the Board of Revenue either by invoking suo motu power of on an application.
8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014
13. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No.355/1985, which has been affirmed in A.S. No.76/1991 and 78/1991 and S.A. No.255/2003 has not been taken into proper perspective by the petitioners by the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned order.
14. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
15. Eachankaranai village in which the subject lands are situated was notified as Inam village and taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 15.4.1965 and ryotwari settlement was introduced from Fasli 1377 is not disputed by the parties. Upon the village being taken over as inam village, the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title applied for ryotwari patta on the ground that adangal extracts were available with the petitioners from Fasli 1384. The Sub Collector, Chengalpet had granted ryotwari patta on 8.11.1977 under the Outside the Scope of Inam Abolition Act. The main claim of the petitioners to the subject lands is on the basis of continued possession and enjoyment of the said lands. 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 The petitioners have no where claimed that they have title to the property. It is also the case of the petitioners in the affidavit that ryotwari patta was granted to the petitioners’ father by the Sub Collector as there was no rival claims made to the said lands.
16. The main grounds on which the impugned order came to be passed cancelling the ryotwari patta granted to the petitioners is that the petitioners have not provided any document to prove their continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and the basis on which the petitioners father was granted ryotwari patta was only on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar.
17. The petitioners have not placed the proceedings in and by which the ryotwari patta was issued to the petitioners father. However, it is the claim of the petitioners that they had produced documentary evidence to substantiate their contention with regard to continuous possession and enjoyment.
18. Further, the impugned order reveals that the petitioner have not been in possession and enjoyment of the lands due to the continuous objection by the 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 local people and in this regard, it is alleged by the respondents that a spot inspection conducted by the authorities reveal that the lands have not been put to use for the purpose of agricultural operations. Further, the local people have objected to the grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioners father on the ground that the subject land was classified as ‘Malai Poramboke’.
19. In this regard, the petitioners rely upon the decree alleged to have been granted by the trial court in O.S. No.355/1985 in and by which permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioners and the said order has been affirmed by the superior courts, upto the position of second appeal. It is the case of the petitioners that the suit was laid claiming title over the subject lands, however, the same has not been granted in favour of the petitioners. However, it is to be pointed out that permanent injunction is alleged to have been granted in favour of the petitioners, yet the said orders in and by which the petitioners were granted permanent injunction has also not been placed before this Court.
20. As already pointed out above, the materials, which formed the basis of the grant of ryotwari patta has not been placed before this Court, nor the 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 proceedings pertaining to the issuance of ryotwari patta. Such being the case, the stand of the petitioners that the said materials have not been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned order cannot be considered by this Court in the absence of the said documents placed in the typed set for appreciation of this Court.
21. As stated above, the grounds on which the ryotwari patta was cancelled are that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands by the petitioners predecessors-in-title and that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the property and further possession and enjoyment title of the petitioners are not found in the Fair Land Register of Eachabnjkaranai Village. When the ryotwari patta granted to the father of the petitioners has been cancelled by making the aforesaid allegations for want of the said materials, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to place all those materials before this Court to counter the impugned order, which the petitioner has miserably failed. 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014
22. Further, the fulcrum of the petitioners contention is that the enquiry has been conducted by the 1st respondent while order has been passed by the 2 nd respondent. True it is that the notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry on the basis of the order of this Court in W.P. No.14000 of 2011 was issued by the District Collector. However, it is seen from the order in W.P. No.14000 of 2011 that this Court had directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and pass orders. Further, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, reveals that enquiry has been conducted by the District Collector by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved persons, including the petitioners. True it is that the District Collector had conducted the enquiry, but this Court, in the order in W.P. No.14000 of 2011 had directed both respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and pass orders. Further, the order of the 2nd respondent reveals that the 2nd respondent was oblivious of all the happenings during the said enquiry. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that during the enquiry the 2nd respondent was not present. That being the case, enquiry has been conducted and order has been passed by the respondents, who were directed to pass orders, the stand of the 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 petitioners that enquiry was conducted by a different authority, while order was passed by a different authority would not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
23. Though a contention relating to cancellation of the ryotwari patta, granted in favour of the father of the petitioners, after a lapse of more than 40 years is raised contending that the long lapse of time should enure to the benefit of the petitioners and, therefore, the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners should be left undisturbed, however, the lapse of about 40 years since the grant of ryotwari patta cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners for the simple reason that merely because an authority has granted ryotwari patta erroneously, which has come to the notice of the superior authority belatedly, that too based on certain directions issued by this Court, the interregnum period in which the petitioners have been possessed of ryotwari patta will not clothe the petitioners with any better claim than what they had at the initial point of time as error committed by an authority, thereby causing loss to the Government, cannot be allowed to stand, as ultimately it is the interest of the public which is of mandatory consideration and the interest of private parties shall only subserve the interest of the public. Therefore, the delay in the cancellation of the ryotwari 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 patta would not in any way affect the ultimate order of cancellation passed by the 2nd respondent and the contention raised by the petitioner does not merit acceptance.
24. There is no dispute about the fact that ryotwari patta has been granted under the Outside the Scope of the Inam Abolition Act by the Sub Collector. Though the petitioner contends that no revision has been preferred by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the ryotwari patta granted by virtue of the power traceable to G.O. Ms. No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.4.1971, the 2nd respondent has no authority to cancel the said patta cannot be sustained for the reason that subsequently, G.O. Ms. No.1147, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 6.10.1983 has been issued by the Government in and by which modification has been made to G.O. Ms. No.1300 and that against the orders passed by the Collectors/District Revenue Officers, revision is provided before the Commissioner of Land Administration with a further revision before against the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration to the Government.
15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014
25. In the case on hand, the order impugned has been passed by the 2nd respondent. Against the said order, revision is available before the Commissioner of Land Administration. However, without exhausting the aforesaid revisional remedy, the petitioners have filed the present petitions before this Court, which is wholly unsustainable. The right course, on the cancellation of the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners, would be to question the same by way of revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration. A revisional remedy being available to the petitioners, the petitioners definitely have to be relegated to exhaust the revisional remedy available to them with a further revision before knocking on the doors of this court. Therefore, in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners to file revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, necessarily the petitioners should be directed to seek the remedy provided under G.O. Ms. No.1147, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 6.10.1983.
26. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file appropriate 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.25863/2014 revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration against the order impugned herein and if such revision is filed the Commissioner of Land Administration is directed to take up the revision on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to return the original impugned order back to the petitioners for the purpose of filing revision, if so advised.
24.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
GLN
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.25863/2014
To
1. The District Collector
Kanchipuram District
Kanchipuram.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Kanchipuram District
Kanchipuram.
3. The Tahsildar
Chengalpet Taluk
Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.25863/2014
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO.25863 OF 2014
Pronounced on
24.08.2022
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis