Madras High Court
Hamsammal @ Hamsaveniammal vs The Special Commissioner And on 16 February, 2016
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON 23/09/2014
DATED: 16/02/2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.30217 of 2007 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Hamsammal @ Hamsaveniammal,
By Power of Attorney V.Janaki Raman,
F10, L & T Apartment, Bharathi Colony Road,
Peelamedu Coimbatore - 641 004. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land of Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its District Collector,
Chennai-600 001.
3.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing
Developing Corporation (TAHDCO),
Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 101. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.K1/24173/2004, dated 31.08.2007, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant patta outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 in favour of the petitioner for the property in Survey No.13 and resurveyed and cast in T.S.No.27, block No.27, Ayanavarm Village, Perambur-Purusaiwalkam Taluk.
For Petitioner : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
For Mr.M.Muthupandian
For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3
- - -
O R D E R
The petitioner submits that her mother Jagadambal and her brother Chandrasekaran applied for patta to an extent of acre 1.88 corresponding to paimash No.543/1, 543/1/1 and 544/1 in Ayanavarm Revenue Village under Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948. The corresponding revenue survey was 13 and subsequently resurveyed in T.S.No.27, Block No.2. The Settlement Tahsildar granted patta only in respect of acre 1.26 and rejected the claim for remaining 62 cents in the same survey number on the ground that it was not a ryoti land and that it was a water spread poramboke. The petitioner's mother and subsequently, the petitioner prosecuted several proceedings before the Revenue Officials for grant of patta but they were of no avail. At every stage the proceedings were also intervened by directions from the High Court in writ petitions filed on her behalf.
2. The petitioner further submits that in several writ petitions, the directions contained by the High Court in W.P.No.7935 of 2006, dated 22.03.2006 and in W.P.No.2052 of 20097, dated 20.01.2007 were significant. As per the order of the High Court in W.P.No.7935 of 2006, the High Court directed the second respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner for grant of patta outside the scope of the Act XXVI 1948. The petition had been dismissed by the second respondent and the petitioner had filed an appeal to the first respondent and it was pending. In the meanwhile, the third respondent attempted to take possession of the property on the purported basis that the property had been delivered to the Housing Board for construction of hostel for Adi Dravidar. The High Court, by its order dated 20.01.2007 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before him. Simultaneously certain other persons owning adjoining lands in T.S.No.12, Ayanavarm Village were staking claim for grant of patta in respect of the same property. Those persons had really neither title nor possession. As a matter of fact, in civil suits filed in O.S.No.5101 of 1968 and O.S.No.6643 of 1968 filed in City Civil Court against those persons viz., Chinnammal, Jadhavan and others, the civil Court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner on 18.08.1970 affirming the petitioner's possession and granting a permanent decree for injunction. The civil Court decision has become final in relating to the property between the petitioner and the aforesaid adjoining owners.
3. The petitioner further submits that in the proceedings before the first respondent, the claim of the petitioner as well as the persons claiming under Chinnammal were considered and the first respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as well as third parties. The appeal has been dismissed essentially on two grounds viz., (i) that the petitioner has not given any proof for the fact that it was ryoti land and (2) that the petitioner has failed to prove her continuous possession of land prior to and on from the notified date set forth in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.04.1971. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
4. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit and resisted the above writ petition. The respondents submit that Ayanavaram Village in Pursawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District was taken over by the Government under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). During the Final Settlement Enquiry in Ayyanavarm Village of Chennai District Thiru.Chandrasekaran and Tmt.Jagadambal (M/o.Hamsammal) applied for patta for an extent of 1.88 acres in respect of paimash Nos.543/1, 543/1/1, 544/1. In his proceedings dated 05.10.1959, the Final Settlement Enquiry Tahsildar allowed patta for an extent of 1.26 acres in T.S.No.13 pro. correlating to the paimash numbers mentioned above and rejected the claim for the remaining extent of 62 cents and it was sub-divided and classified as "Water Spread Government Poramboke" as T.S.No.27. Against this order, Thiru.Chandrasekaran filed a revision petition before the Director of Survey and Settlement and it was rejected as "time barred". Then, he filed a revision to the erstwhile Board of Revenue and it was also dismissed. The respondents further submit that while so, one Tmt.Chinnammal ( a new claimant) filed a petition before the Director of Survey and Settlement, under Section 5(2) of the Act 26/48 claiming patta for the lands in T.S.Nos.12 and 27 of Block No.2, Ayanavaram Village. The Director of Survey and Settlement set-aside the final Settlement Enquiry Tahsildar's order in respect of S.Nos.12 and 27 and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu for detailed enquiry and dispsoal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu by his order dated 30.09.1971 allowed patta in favour of Tv.Jayavelu, Somasundaram, Jadavan and Shanmugam (all are legal-heirs of Tmt.Chinnammal) for an extent of 80 cents in T.S.No.12A and 60 cents in T.S.No.27.
5. The respondents further submit that against this order, Tmt.Hamsammal filed a revision petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and it was rejected in the Commissioner of Land Administration's order in K1/R.P.7/79, dated 03.09.1981. While rejecting the revision petition, it was observed that the grant of patta of Tvl.Jayavelu and others in T.S.No.12A and 27 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu was erroneous, and hence, a show cause notice was issued to them in Commissioner of Land Administration's Roc's No.K1/43236/1981, dated 28.09.1981, as to why the patta should not be cancelled. In the meantime, Tmt.Hamsammal filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2825 of 1982 before this Court against the Commissioner of Land Administration's proceedings dated 03.09.1981. In this writ petition, this Court, by order dated 01.03.1990, set-aside the orders of the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 03.09.1981 with a direction to dispose the case on merits duly affording an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties. The respondents further submit that fresh enquiry was conducted by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and orders were passed on 28.06.1990 setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu dated 30.09.1971 as it relates to T.S.No.27 of Block 2 measuring 62 cents in Ayanavarm Village and it was ordered to register the same as Government water spread poramboke. Aggrieved by the orders of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 28.06.1990, Tvl.Jathavan and others filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17396 of 1990 and Tmt.Hamsammal has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1367 of 1991 before this Court, challenging the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration's order dated 28.06.1990. In W.P.No.17396 of 1990, this Court quashed the orders of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration to reconsider the matter afresh in view of their contention that they are entitled to patta even out side the scope of Abolition Act.
6. The respondents further submit that on the other and, the writ petition in W.P.No.1367 of 1991 filed by Tmt.Hamsammal challenging the same order of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration passed in D.Dis(K)R.P.4/90, dated 28.06.1990, was dismissed by this Court in its order dated 23.02.1999, upholding the orders of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 28.06.1990. Against the said order. Tmt.Hamsammal filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1589 of 1999. It is seen that in this writ appeal Tmtm.Hamsammal has pleaded for grant of permission to withdraw the writ petition itself due to the fact that the orders of the Commissioner of Land Administration passed in D.Dis(K)R.P.4/90, dated 28.06.1990, has been quashed in another writ petition in W.P.No.17396 of 1990 filed by her rival claimants, viz., Thiru.Jathavan and others and remanded for fresh enquiry. As the matter is pending before the Commissioner of Land Administration for fresh enquiry, she would be able to press her case before the Commissioner of Land Administration. This Court, by their oder passed in W.A.No.1539 of 1999, dated 10.10.2000, has accepted this plea and allowed the writ appeal and directed Tmt.Hamsammal to withdraw the writ petition and disposed the case as prayed for. The respondents further submit that subsequent to the above judgments, the claimants Thiru.Jathavan & others and Tmt.Hamsammal have filed petitions to the Commissioner of Land Administration and requested to grant patta for the land in question outside the scope of the Act. The petitions were examined and in their office letter dated 26.10.1999, the District Collector, Chennai was directed to consider the claims of the writ petitioners and to pass orders as per the directions of this Court. The respondents further submit that again one of the claimants Tmt.Hamsammal, represented by her Power Agent Thiru.V.Janakiraman has moved this Court in writ petition in W.P.No.7935 of 2004 and obtained a direction to the Commissioner of Land Administration to dispose his petition dated 24.12.1999 within a period of eight weeks and this Court's direction was communicated to the District Collector of Chennai in their office letter dated 05.10.2006 and the District Collector was directed to pass orders on the claim one way or other as the case was already been referred to the District Collector of Chennai. Accordingly, the District Collector of Chennai in her proceedings dated 28.12.2006, enquired the case and rejected the claim of both parties.
7. The respondents further submit that against the District Collector's orders the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition to the Commissioner of Land Administration. Simultaneously, the claimant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2052 of 2007 , dated 20.01.2007 before this Court and stated that after rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the District Collector has permitted the Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravidar Housing Development Corporation to enter upon the land for the purpose of construction of hostels for the Adi-Dravidar students and pleaded before this Court to direct the Special Commissioner and commissioner of Land Administration to dispose of the revision petition within a time frame. This Court has allowed the writ petition and directed the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in their order dated 20.01.2007 to dispose of the revision petition within a period of two months. Therefore hearing notice was sent to the claimant to appear for personal enquiry on 16.02.2007. The respondents further submit that in the meantime, the claimant has filed a contempt petition against the District Collector of Chennai, the Managing Director, TAHDCO stating that the District Collector has handed over the land to the TAHDCO, which is against the directions of this Court, dated 20.01.2007 as the matter is pending for review with the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. On this contempt petition, the District Collector is pursuing separate action and a factual report was sent to Government Pleader, by the District Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer in letter dated 16.02.2007, marking a carbon copy to their office. The respondents further submit that as per the Hon'ble High Court Order, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration heard the case, rejected the revision petition and confirmed the orders of the District Collector, chennai in his proceedings dated 31.08.2007. Challenging the above order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. The respondents further submit that as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2052 of 2007, dated 20.01.2007, the case was heard by Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and orders dated 31.08.2007 were issued. The present writ petition has been filed against the above order.
8. The respondents further submit that it is not a dispute between the individuals but very valuable Government land is involved in this case. To consider a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act XXVI/1948, the petitioner should produce records to prove that the suit land is a ryot or ought to have been properly included in the holding of ryot and his right should have been recognized by the land holder by accepting rent. In this case, the petitioner has not produced any land holder's patta or kist receipt to prove that the land has been included in their holding. The respondents further submit that in order to get a patta outside the scope of Abolition Act, as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue dated 30.04.1971, the petitioner must prove her continuous possession and enjoyment of the land prior to and on and from the notified date. But, she has not produced any valid records, which fails to meet the requirements of the above G.O. for the continuous possession and enjoyment of the land prior to and on and from the notified date. She was granted ryotwari patta for the extent of land she is eligible during the settlement itself. Only the remaining extent, for which she did not possess any valid records, was classified and recorded as "water spread government poramboke" according to the state on ground at the time of settlement. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
9. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and submits that the respondents have time and again opposed the various proceedings initiated by the petitioner for grant of patta outside the scope of Madras Estate Abolition Act only on the ground that the petitioner did not prove her holding and possession of the subject lands continuously, prior to and on the date of the notification. This has been the consistent plea of the respondents before all the authorities concerned. It is equally a fact that the petitioner has been producing all the relevant documentary evidence to establish her possession and holding continuously, prior to and on the date of notification before all the authorities. The petitioner further submits that when the Enquiry Thasildar passed orders on 05.10.1959, he had not made any classification on the subject lands and only mentioned as a passing reference that the excess of 62 cents of lands as encroachment on the adjoining water spread poromboke. He had only sub-divided the same as T.P.No.27 pro. The said authority also recorded the holding of the subject lands by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner since 1941-42 under paimash Nos.543/1 and 543/1-1 including the nature of such holding as assignment. In such circumstances and subsequently by the proceedings of the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Madras-I, dated 02.01.1963, it was held that the subject lands was ryotwari and further held that the lands have been in the possession of Sambangi Reddy, the father of the petitioner herein.
10. The petitioner further submits that considering the above, the Tahsildar recognized the holding on the subject lands by the petitioner and consequent whereof, the revenue was levied and collected from the petitioner then and there. It is also relevant to submit that in the proceedings before the Enquiry Tahsildar statements were recorded under which the earlier patta bearing No.383 for the lands in paimash No.543/1 was produced as proof for holding of the lands even before as well as on the date of notification. The said statement along with the records produced would obviously form part of the records with the respondents till this date. The petitioner further submits that the Land Register Extract issued by the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 21.10.1966 also reveals that the subject lands were held by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner as well as the nature of the said holding. The extent has also been mentioned in the said document. In spite of all these documents produced and available as proof for the factum of holding of the subject land by the petitioner and her predecessor-in-title continuously, prior to and on the date of notification, the respondents have totally brushed them aside to come to an unsustainable conclusion to reject the claim of ryotwari patta by the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the other documents produced before this Court as well as before the authorities concerned including the respondents stand proof for the holding of the lands by the petitioner and her continuous possession thereof and it is an established case of the petitioner that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land till today. The petitioner further submits that it is not as if that the respondents have initiated any proceedings in accordance with the procedure laid down under law to evict the petitioner from the subject lands all these days. It is also not a case of the respondent that the subject lands were classified as water spread poramboke and possession handed over to any Government Department for development or otherwise. On the other hand, the petitioner has been taking all efforts to keep her possession in tact and she has been diligently initiating appropriate proceedings before all the authorities concerned and has been tirelessly fighting to establish her rights to claim ryotwari patta outside the scope of Madras Estate Abolition Act as well as under the guideline issued by G.O.Ms.No.1300 of Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1971.
11. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been assessed by the Urban Land Tax Authorities for the subject lands and has remitted the levies without any default. By one way or other, the respondents have been rejecting the claim of the petitioner all along these days. No orders so far passed by the respondents have dealt with the issue concerned in the claim of the petitioner under the above said Government Order of the statute. The conclusion rendered by the authorities is only in the nature of mere statement and not founded on legal principles as well as in the light of the various documentary proof produced by the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that she has also filed a Civil Suit before the Original Side of this Court and in application seeking to institute the suit without issuing statutory notice to Government Authorities concerned, as the respondents did not enter appearance in spite of notice issued on them and this Court was pleased to order the said application as prayed for. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is the categorical case of the petitioner that her holding as well as possession continuously, prior to and on the date of notification by the Government, in respect of the subject lands has been established by way of due and proper proceedings in which substantial documentary proof have been submitted for consideration. Therefore, in any event, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of patta outside the scope of Madras Estate Abolition Act and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1300, dated 30.04.1971. Hence, the petitioner entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.
12. The petitioner has also filed written submissions in the above writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that the lands in paimash Nos.543/1, 543/1-1, 544/1 of a total extent of 2.24 acres was originally in the possession and enjoyment of one Mr.Sampangi Reddiar and Smt.Jagadambal, the parents of the petitioner. It is on the basis of an Assignment patta bearing No.383, the lands were in the possession and enjoyment of the parents of the petitioner. After the enforcement of the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the lands of the petitioner were brought under the purview of the Act and the proceedings were initiated for grant of patta to the Ryotwaris pertaining to the said lands. While proceeding as such, the Government acquired 36 cents of land out of 2.24 acres held by the petitioner's parents for PWD water works In so far as the remaining 1.88 acres of land corresponding in the Survey No.13, in Block II, the legal-heirs of Late.Sampangi Reddy applied for grant of Ryotwari patta. As per the enquiry conducted by the final Settlement Enquiry Tahsildar-I, Madras, it was found that the said Jagadambal and Chandrasekaran, being the legal-heirs of Late.Sampangi Reddiar were held to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands for a total extent of 1.26 acres and were issued patta in their favour. While assessing so, the said Authority recorded that the balance 62 cents of land is an encroached portion of the adjoining water spread poramboke on the Eastern side of the lands. Consequently, the said Authority was pleased to sub-divide the same as T.P.No.27 Pro. vide his order dated 05.10.1959.
13. The petitioner further submits that by proceedings of the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, dated 02.11.1963, the said Authority has recorded in the Town Survey register that the total extent of lands of 1.88 acres was held by Sampangi Reddy, Jagadambal and Chandrasekaran and recorded the nature of holding as Ryotwari. The said order holds good till this date. However, as an Enquiry Thasildar having held that the LRs of Sampangi Reddiar are not entitled for the grant of patta in so far as the balance 62 cents of lands, the said order was challenged before the Appellate Authority under various circumstances. In the meanwhile, the adjacent landowners of the petitioner's property attempted to forcefully enter the lands. Upon which the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.5101 of 1968 against Chinnammal and others before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The rival parties also filed a suit in O.S.No.6643 of 1968 as a counter blast case. Both the cases were tried together and in and by a common judgment dated 18.08.1970, the City Civil Court of Chennai decreed the suit filed by the petitioner and dismissed the rival suit. While rendering a judgment as a whole, the possession and enjoyment as well as holding of the lands to an extent of 62 cents in T.S.No.27 by the petitioner and her ancestors were found in their favour. The rival claim was since rejected. The petitioner further submits that in spite of such a civil suit proceeding and finality thereon, the said Chinnammal and others applied for patta for the said lands before the Final Settlement Enquiry Tahsildar and obtained an order of grant of patta by suppression of materials aspects and without due notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.2825 of 1982 and after due enquiry, the writ petition was ordered by cancelling the patta issued in favour of Chinnammal and others and further the concerned authorities were directed to consider the claim of patta by the petitioner and to pass orders after notice to all the parties concerned.
14. The petitioner further submits that subsequently, in and by an order dated 28.06.1990, the first respondent held enquiry and passed an order cancelling the patta issued in favour of Chinnammal and others, rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta and further ordered the registration of the said land as Government Water Spread Poramboke in the Village and Taluk records. In the said proceedings, the petitioner produced all the relevant records to establish the fact that the lands of an extent of 62 cents in T.S.No.27 has been in her possession and enjoyment prior to and on the date of notification in the settlement proceedings. Without considering the documents in any manner, the first respondent held that the petitioner has failed to prove her holding of the said lands prior to and on the date of notification, in a blind manner and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.1367 of 1991 before this Court and in and by an order dated 23.02.1999, this Court was pleased to dismiss the same. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1589 of 1999 and after hearing, this Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to approach the first respondent with all the relevant documents and proofs to establish that she has been holding the said lands prior to and on the date of notification and to seek for appropriate order for grant of patta. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a requisition for the grant of patta on 24.12.1999 before the first respondent. Subsequently, reminders were sent to the respondent until March 2006 on various dates. In such circumstances, the third respondent has attempted to take possession of the subject lands for construction of hostel. Apprehending dispossession, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.7935 of 2006 before this Court seeking for a direction to dispose the representation of the petitioner pending on the file of the first respondent which was preferred pursuant to the order passed in W.A.No.1589 of 1999, dated 10.10.2000. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation within a period of eight weeks.
15. The petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7935 of 2006, the second respondent concluded his proceedings by issuing notice to all the parties concerned and ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner as well as the rival parties. In fact, the second respondent held that the lands under reference was found to be a water spread poramboke and water was stagnating on the land to a depth of 5 to 6 feet on ground and hence, the records produced by the petitioner do not stand proof for holding of the said lands prior to and on the date of notification. As against the said order of the second respondent dated 28.12.2006, the petitioner preferred Statutory Appeal before the first respondent. While the said appeal was pending disposal, the third respondent was issued with an order by the second respondent to enforce an earlier order dated 18.08.2005, permitting the third respondent to erect construction of hostel in the subject lands. On learning about the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.20252 of 2007 before this Court to quash the order of the second respondent in favour of the third respondent. In and by an order dated 20.01.2007, this Court noting the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was pending before the first respondent, passed an order to the extent to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months and till such time, the order passed by the second respondent was directed to be kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the order referred above, the first respondent held his proceedings, the petitioner participated and produced all the relevant records and statutory documents to substantiate her case of holding the subject lands prior to and on the date of notification and continuously thereafter thereby entitling her for the grant of patta outside the scope of Madras Estate Abolition Act as well as in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1300, dated 30.04.1971 issued by the Revenue Department. Here again the first respondent simply adopted the order passed by the second respondent and concluded the enquiry and passed an order on 31.08.2007 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the grant of patta for the lands of an extent of 62 cents in T.S.No.27. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said order in the above writ petition.
16. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.ARL.Sundaresan appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands comprised in Survey Nos.543/1, 543/1/1 and 544/1 to an extent of 2.24 acres situated at Ayyanavaram Village were originally in possession and enjoyment by the petitioner's parents viz., Mr.Sampangi Reddiar and Smt.Jagadambal. Assignment patta had been issued bearing No.383. Under the circumstances, the Government acquired 36 cents of lands out of 2.24 acres possessed by the petitioner's parents for the purpose of PWD water works. Thereafter, the legal-heirs of the Late.Sampangi Reddy had applied for grant of ryotwari patta for the rest of the 1.88 acres. The Settlement Tahsildar, Madras, had conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that Mrs. Jagadambal and Mr.Chandrasekaran are the legal-heirs of the Late.Sampangi Reddy and had held possession and enjoyment of lands to an extent of 1.26 acres and were issued a patta in their favour. At the time of issuing the patta, the authorities recorded that the rest of the 62 cents of lands is an encroached portion on the assignee's water catchment area classified as Government poramboke lands, situated on the eastern side of the land, subsequently, the same was sub-divided by the authorities.
17. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Deputy Tahsildar has recorded in the Town Survey Register that the entire land to an extent of 1.88 acres was held by Sampangi Reddy, Jagadambal and Chandrasekaran and the holding of lands was classified as ryotwari. The Tahsildar held that the legal-heirs of late Sampangi Reddy are not entitled to receive patta for the lands to an extent of 62 cents, the same was challenged before the Appellate Authority. Under the circumstances, the adjacent landowners had attempted to make wrong entry with the said lands and hence, the legal-heirs of the late S.Sampangi Reddy had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.5101 of 1968 for injunction and declaration. The adjacent landowners also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.6643 of 1968 and claimed civil rights for the same property. The City Civil Court had tried together both suits and passed a common judgment, wherein the suit in O.S.No.5101 of 1968 had been decreed in favour of the legal-heirs of Late Sampangi Reddy and the adjacent landowners suit in O.S.No.6643 of 1968 was dismissed and as such, the entire lands to an extent of 1.88 cents was under the occupation and enjoyment of the petitioner's parents.
18. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Chinnammal & others had applied for patta before the Settlement Tahsildar without disclosing the civil Court decree and judgment and obtained patta, knowing the same the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2825 of 1982 before this Court for cancelling the patta. This Court had directed the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner's claim on merits after an advance notice to both parties. Subsequently, the first respondent / Commissioner of Land Administration had conducted an enquiry and passed orders dated 28.06.1990, wherein the patta issued in the name of Chinnammal and others were cancelled and the petitioner's claim was rejected stating that lands to an extent of 62 cents has been classified as Government Water Spread Poramboke in Village and Taluk records. However, the petitioner had produced relevant records before the first respondent to establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the lands to an extent of 62 cents in Town Survey No.27. These material facts had not been considered by the first respondent. Against the said impugned order dated 28.06.1990, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1367 of 1991 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 23.02.1999 by the learned Single Judge. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal in W.A.No.1589 of 1999, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent herein with relevant records to determine her rights rights over the lands to an extent of 62 cents comprised in Town Survey No.27. As per this Court's directions, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent on 24.12.1999, subsequently reminders were sent to the first respondent on various dates until March 2006. Under the circumstances, the third respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Developing Corporation (TAHDCO), have attempted to take possession of the subject lands for construction of a hostel, immediately, the petitioner had rushed to this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.7935 of 2006 and sought direction to dispose of the petitioner's representation which is pending for a long time on the file of the first respondent. This Court directed the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation on merits within a period of eight weeks.
19. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Deputy Tahsildar, Madras has held that the subject lands were ryotwari and further held that the lands have been in the possession of Sampangi Reddiar, the father of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has been remitting mandatory taxes to the statutory authorities. As per the land register extract which has been maintained by the Assistant Settlement Officer, it is clearly seen that the subject lands had been held by the predecessors in title of the petitioner and without considering all aspects including documentary proof, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim. Further, the respondent had not assigned any valid reasons and passed the impugned order in an arbitrary manner. In the year 1999, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued chitta extract wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is in possession continuously for more than 60 years and as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive patta from the respondents.
20. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Ramesh appearing for the respondents submits that the subject lands had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948. The petitioner's mother and brother had applied for patta for an extent of 1.88 acres in respect of paimash No.543/1, 543/1/1 and 544/1 before the Settlement Officer at Ayanavarm, Chennai. The Settlement Officer after an enquiry granted patta for an extent of 1.26 acres in T.S.No.13 correlating to the said paimash nos and rejected the claim for the remaining extent of 62 cents and it was sub-divided and classifieds as water spread government poramboke lands as T.S.No.27. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, a revision has been filed before the Director of Survey and Settlement, but it was rejected on the ground of being time barred. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another revision to the erstwhile Board of Revenue and it was also dismissed. Under the circumstances, a new claimant viz., Chinnammal filed a petition before the Director of Survey and Settlement and claiming patta and the Director of Survey remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu, who had allowed patta to the legal-heirs of Late Chinnammal. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Land Administration, who had issued a show cause notice for cancelling the patta and the said show cause notice was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing a writ petition and the same was set-aside and further direction was issued to the Commissioner, Land Administration to dispose the case on merits.
21. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Ramesh appearing for the respondents furthers submits that after an enquiry, the Commissioner passed an order to set-aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and ordered to register the same as Government Water spread poramboke lands. Against the said order, the petitioner herein and a new claimant had filed a writ petition and challenged the said order before this Court. This Court had directed the Commissioner of Land Administration to reconsider the matter afresh. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader further submits that the Power Agent of the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court had directed the District Collector to pass orders on merits, but the District Collector rejected the claim from both parties. Under the circumstances the District Collector has permitted the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Developing Corporation to enter upon the lands for the purpose of construction of hostels for Adi Drivadar students. This Court directed the Special Commissioner Land Administration to dispose the revision petition, but the same was dismissed and the order of Collector was confirmed. The petitioner had not produced documents to prove that the subject matter of the land is ryotwari. Further, the petitioner had not produced any valid records that she is in possession. Hence, the highly competent Additional Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
22. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:-
(i) The Settlement Tahsildar No.1, Madras had conducted a comprehensive enquiry and granted patta in favour of the petitioner's mother and her son to an extent of 1.26 acres and besides this, the land has also been assigned to them. The rest of the 62 cents were classified as water spread poramboke lands. Hence, the Settlement Tahsildar had granted ryotwari patta to an extent of 1 acre 26 cents out of 1 acre 88 cents.
(ii) Now, the stand of the respondents is that the District Collector, had permitted the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Developing Corporation to construct hostels for Adi Dravidar students. As such, it is evident that the subject matter of the lands are suitable for residing purpose. Hence, the stand taken by the respondents that the lands have been classified as Water Spread Government Poramboke lands is not consistent with their earlier stand.
(iii) The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.5101 of 1968, on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for injunction and declaration stating that the petitioner's father viz., Sampangi Reddiar had purchased lands to an extent of 2.24 acres comprised in paimash No.543/1, 543/1/1 and 544/1 in Ayanavarm Village and the subject land is also part of the said property. The said suit had been decreed in favour of the petitioner herein. It clearly proves that the petitioner and the predecessors are in possession and enjoying the same from the year 1970.
(iv) The City Civil Court had observed that the petitioner paid penal levy to the statutory authorities a sum of Rs.605.60/- for possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The penal tax was levied as per the order of the Tahsildar, North West Taluk, Madras dated 17.07.1968. The same was observed in the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.5101 of 1968, dated 18.08.1970, which becomes final and as such, it clearly proves that the petitioner is continuously in physical possession.
(v) The petitioner had remitted urban land tax to the Revenue Authorities amounting to a sum of Rs.200/-, on 30.05.1978 for the subject land. Further, the Tahsildar attached to the Purasawakam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai had demanded a sum of Rs.3,843/- as balance of urban land tax, and this also confirms that the petitioner is in physical possession and enjoyment of the land.
(vi) The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai had issued a chitta extract dated 16.06.1999 which reveals that the petitioner is in physical possession, besides, the Town Survey Register extract, dated 02.11.1963 shows that the petitioner and her family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same to an extent of 1 acre 88 cents.
(vii) No indicating boards viz., sign boards, fencing or marking with stone blocks are found over the said subject lands to show that the respondents are in possession. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner is in physical possession and therefore, statutory authorities have levied mandatory taxes and the same has been received from the petitioner as of now. Therefore, the stand of the Government that they are in physical possession is not at all tenable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to receive patta from the competent respondent to regularize the issue, and as such, this Court grants permanent injunction restraining the respondents from encroaching upon the above mentioned lands.
23. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers and this Court's view listed as (i) to (vii) above, this Court allows the above writ petition. Consequently, the order passed by the first respondent in proceeding No.K1/24173/2004, dated 31.08.2007 is quashed. This Court directs the respondents to grant patta outside the purview of Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 in favour of the petitioner for the property in Survey No.13 and resurveyed and cast in T.S.No.27, block No.27, Ayanavarm Village, Perambur-Purusaiwalkam Taluk, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16/02/2016
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s/vs
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s/vs
To
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land of Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 001.
3.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing
Developing Corporation (TAHDCO),
Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 101.
Pre Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.30217 of 2007 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
16/02/2016