Madras High Court
Blessing Youth Mission vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 July, 2022
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
W.A.No.1834/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.1834 of 2018
Blessing Youth Mission
rep. by its Chairman
T.Dickson Daniel Moses,
8, Church Colony, Kanlinjur Road,
Vellore-632 006. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Collectorate, Salem.
4. The Sub-Collector,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
6. The Tahsildar,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1834/2018
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 03.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.34109 of 2017 by a learned
Single Judge.
For Appellants : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Paul & Paul
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 03.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.34109 of 2017 in and by which the learned Single Judge has given a finding that the land-in-question having an extent of 92 cents in Survey No.105/4 situated at Palamalai Village, being an assigned land by the Government in favour of Tribal, the said land assigned to a Tribal cannot alienate or transfer the same to any non-tribal.
2. Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Paul and Paul, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the said findings given by the learned Single Judge argued that the Writ Petitioner/appellant is an absolute owner of the property-in-question. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 The appellant is a registered religious and charitable society committed to the blessing of all sections of society irrespective of caste or creed. The appellant Society is also running a centre in Palamalai Village which comes under Kolathur Union of Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The said centre was opened during the year 2006 and it has been serving the people in and around Palamalai Village. Although, originally, the appellant centre was commenced in a rented place, one Mr.Arapuli, a resident of Palamalai Village, voluntarily came forward to sell his piece of land under Survey No.105/4 to an extent of 92 cents to the appellant society to set up a small dental clinic to serve the people living in and around Palamalai Village. The said land also stands in the name of Kozhanda Goundar in the 'A' Register, who is the father of Mr.Arapuli. The competent Revenue Authority also issued patta No.262 in favour of Kozhanda Gounder for the above said land. After his demise, Mr.Arapuli, inherited the said land as his legal heir and has been enjoying the said property. Thereafter, the owner of the land Mr.Arapuli has executed a sale deed dated 01.08.2006 in favour of the appellant society and the said sale deed was also registered as Document No.659/2006 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the patta was also transferred in favour of the appellant by an order dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Zonal Deputy 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 Tahsildar in Patta No.1305. After the purchase, the appellant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land-in-question and they are utilizing the same for serving the people of that locality.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further submit that one Mr.V.Ponnusamy filed W.P.No.18901/2010 seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Collector and Revenue Officials to consider his representations dated 03.03.2008 and 29.07.2008. In the said representations, Mr.Ponnusamy questioned the sale of the assigned land in favour of the appellant herein, which is impermissible in law. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that when the land-in-question was at no point of time assigned to anyone even prior to the said Kozhanda Goundar, it is not open to the respondents to plead that the land-in- question covered under Survey No.105/4 having an extent of 92 cents originally belonging to a Tribal Community by virtue of any assignment order cannot be alienated or transferred to anyone. When the land-in-question, at no point of time formed part of any assignment order issued by the revenue authority, contrary thereto, being a patta land, the pattadar alone is entitled to deal with the property, therefore, the ownership of the pattadhar cannot be questioned. But this aspect has been completely overlooked by the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 respondents by issuing the impugned order dated 08.12.2017. Equally, the learned Single Judge also has failed to look into the basic issue as to whether the land covered in Survey No.105/4 of Palamalai Village is forming part of any assignment order, because no assignment order had ever been issued in respect of the land-in- question. Concluding his arguments, learned Senior Counsel would also submit that even if the respondents come forward to produce any clinching evidence that the land-in-question at any point of time formed part of any order of assignment, the appellant cannot have a case. When the respondents had not produced any assignment order before the writ court, it is not legally permissible to give a finding that the land-in-question is an assigned land.
4. In reply, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents although vehemently argued supporting the order dated 08.12.2017 issued by the 4th respondent herein, namely, the Sub-Collector, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, he was unable to show before us whether the land covered in Survey No.105/4 having an extent of 92 cents situated in Palamalai Village was forming part of any order of assignment at any point of time and no order of assignment has been produced either before the learned Single Judge or before us to show that the land-in-question is prohibited for 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 transfer.
5. We are also able to see that if the land-in-question originally belongs to any Tribal by virtue of any order of assignment, no doubt, such land can never be alienated or transferred to a non- Tribal person. But in the present case, the land-in-question is a patta land. Originally the land belongs to one Mr. Kozhanda Goundar and after his demise his son Arapuli inherited the said land and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the said Arapuli, the original owner, sold the land-in-question by executing a sale deed dated 01.08.2006 in favour of the appellant society and the said sale deed was also registered as Document No.659/2006 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk and after the execution of the sale deed, the patta was also transferred in favour of the appellant by an order dated 27.12.2007 by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar in Patta No.1305. Secondly, originally, the said land also has been in the name of Kozhanda Gounder in 'A' Register who is the father of Arapuli. Therefore, the competent authority has also issued patta No.262 in favour of the said Kozhanda Gounder. Nowhere, we are able to see that the land-in-question originally forms part of any order of assignment. Therefore, it is too far to say that the patta land, namely, the land which is not forming part of any order of 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 assignment given to any Tribal shall not be transferred to a non-tribal person.
6. At this stage, learned Special Government Pleader placing on record G.O.Ms.No.561, Revenue Department, dated 14.3.1979 would submit that by the said Government Order, the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue) has been requested to issue necessary correction slips to Board Standing Order Volume-I to make a proposal to introduce legislation on prohibit alienation of the patta lands. Although, there was a deliberation initiated vide G.O.Ms.No.561 dated 14.3.1979 to introduce a legislation to prohibit alienation of patta lands by Tribals in favour of non-Tribals, since no such legislation has been issued, the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the land-in-question is an assigned land without there being any document or any iota of material evidence, is liable to go. Therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.34109 of 2017 dated 03.07.2018.
7. In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.34109 of 2017 dated 03.07.2018 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 (T.R.J.,) (K.B.J.,) 06.07.2022 tsi T.RAJA,J. AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J. tsi To 1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem. 4. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 6. The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. W.A.No.1834 of 2018 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1834/2018 06.07.2022 9/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis