Madras High Court
Aaraan vs The Secretary To Government on 24 June, 2015
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.7812 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2014 Order Reserved on 28.11.2014 Judgment Pronounced on 24.06.2015 Aaraan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The District Collector, Erode 638 011. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Jawan's Complex, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Jawan's Complex, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. 6.The Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District 638 052. 7.Rasathi 8.Samiappan 9.Subbathal ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to implement his order made on 07.05.2012 under Notice Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70/C1 in letter and spirit directing to the 3rd respondent District Collector to reassign the land to the extent of 0.84 cent in Survey No.312 and 1 acre 96 cent in survey No.314/B, resurvey No.4/2-11-16 and in whole 2.80 acre land at pasuvapatti village in Perundurai Taluk, Erode District to the lawful original assignee the petitioner herein and report compliance with imposing of case cost. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Palanisamy For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh (for R1 to R6) Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy (for R7 and R8) Mr.T.M.Karthikeyan (for R9) ***** O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that he is totally an illiterate person but only learnt to sign his signature in tamil only. The dalit petitioner at the outset would like to state that this Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the original impugned order dated 07.05.2012 under Notice Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70/C1 by the second respondent for the present on the ground that it has been misplaced and not readily available. Based on the Statutory Rule 8(6) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965 read with Section 94 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961), the petitioner being a member of Schedule Caste was considered for assignment of Surplus land in Pasuvapatti Village, Perundurai Taluk of Erode District. Accordingly the fifth respondent Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms Erode by an order dated 26.12.1978 by way of a Deed of Assignment Order No.147 in form F Vide Ref. No.177/MR IV/17-70 accorded assigning 2.80 acre surplus land in the said village in favour of the petitioner along with Patta No-87. After takeover of 20 cents by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the petitioner was assigned totally an outright 2.80 Acres, an extent of 0.84 Acre in S.No.312 and 1.96 Acre in S.No.314/B in Pasuvapatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. This is not in dispute as per the second respondent observation. The condition precedent for assignment of land under the said Act is that assignee should be either a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. In other words, the members of non SC/ST persons are ineligible for assignment of land as per the condition No.6 of Assignment of Surplus Land under this Act.
2.The following are the conditions prescribed and agreed to for deed of assignment of land based on the said Statutory Act as accorded between the petitioner assignee and fifth respondent assignor:
Conditions of Assignment of Surplus Lands (1)The assignment shall be liable to be modified or cancelled, if it is found that it was made under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation, fraud, or that there was an irregularity in the procedure. The assignment shall also be modified or cancelled, if it is shown that the extent assigned to the assignee is in excess of the limits prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961) or the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 as the case may be.
(2)In the event of the modification or cancellation of an assignment, the land assigned shall be resumed from the assignee, either in part or in full, as the case may be, and on such resumption, the assignee shall not be entitled to any amount for any improvement effected by him on the land. The value of the land, buildings and trees thereon paid by him may, at the discretion of the assigning authority be refunded to him in part or in full. The assignee shall be liable for payment for each year of occupation, an amount equal to the annual value as calculated in the manner specified in part 1 of schedule III to the Act and ten percent of the value on trees, structures and fixtures thereon determined. Provided that where the land was such that it could not be cultivated without considerable work and expenditure and also the land was left fallow during any period, the amount may be waived for that period. The assignee shall also be liable for damages, if any, caused by him to the land. The amount for the occupation and the damages shall be recovered from him by deduction from the value of the land, building and trees thereon paid by him, such excess shall be recovered from him if it were as arrear of land revenue.
(3)All sums found due to the Government under, or by virtue of the order of assignment, shall be recovered from the assignee and his properties, movable and immovable, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), as if such sums were arrears of land revenue, or in any other manner as the Government may deem fit.
(4)The annual assessment on the land shall be liable to periodical revision at resettlement.
(5)The Government reserves the right to levy ground rent in lieu of assessment if the land or a portion there of is used for a non agricultural purpose and such ground rent shall be liable to revision from time to time, in accordance with the rules in force.
(6)The land assigned shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of the period specified in paragraph 8 below and not even hereafter in respect of lands assigned to a member of Scheduled Castes or to a member of Scheduled Tribes except to other members of the Scheduled Castes or to be other members of the Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be provided that the land may be hypothecated to Government under the Land improvement loans Act 1883 (Central Act XX of 1883) and the Agricultural Loans Act 1884 (Central Act XII of 1884) or to a cooperative institution or a Scheduled bank authorized by the Government for affording credit to the agriculturists under the schemes of institutional financing of agricultural credits as security for loans obtained for improvement to the lands.
(7)Where the value of the land and buildings and trees thereon is payable in installments.
a.The first installment shall be payable before the execution of the deed of assignment;
b.The second and subsequent installment of the land value shall be payable on the 10th day of February of every succeeding year;
c.In the event of default in the payment of an installment, the amount of the installment shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue;
d.In the event of default in the payment of two consecutive installments, the amount already paid shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government and the land shall be liable to be resumed; and e.If in any year, due to adverse seasonal conditions, the land revenue in respect of the land is remitted or suspended, the recovery of the installment payable that year and of the installments payable in subsequent years shall be postponed by one year.
(8)Subject to the conditions of this deed the land will vest absolutely with the assignee only after the value of the land, buildings and trees thereon is paid in full. Or after the expiry of a period of Twenty Years. If any land assigned under these rules is required for any public purposes before the recovery of the last installment of land value due from the assignee, the land may be resumed by Government. In such cases the annual value as fixed under Scheduled III of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act, 1979 (Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979), for use of the land from the date of assignment, to the date of resumption by Government and the loans and advances, if any, granted for the improvement of the land or on the security of the land will be recoverable from the assignee. Subject to adjustment against such dues, the assignee shall be entitled to refund of the installments of land value paid by him and reimbursement of the cost of any permanent improvement effected or any structure such as wells, buildings, etc., erected on the land at his own expenses for agricultural purposes or for his own residence.
(9)The assignee shall engage him in direct cultivation of the land assigned. Provided that his condition shall not be applicable to persons referred to in rule 5(1)(v) and persons who are physically or mentally disabled, women including widows, and old persons who have no dependents or family members to do cultivation on their behalf.
(10)The assignee shall pay on the due dates, the land revenue assessment, cases, and local taxes, in force from time to time in respect of the land assigned, with effect from the year in which the assignment is sanctioned.
(11)The assignee shall pay the difference of the land value and the interest thereon. If the amount payable to the landowner in respect of the land is revised by or on the orders of any competent authority.
(12)The assignment shall be liable to be cancelled in case of violation of any of the conditions of assignments.
(13)The assignee shall abide by such other conditions as may be imposed under rule 9.
3.The petitioner further submits that the said 2.80 Acre land assigned to him was over and above acquisition of 20 cent land for the use of TNEB. He further adds that he has paid all taxes, revenue and kist payable to Government from 1978 to 2004. The petitioner further submits that he was surprised and shocked on all a sudden by the letter dated 31.05.2007 from the fifth respondent conveying that the land measuring 0.84 Acre in S.No.312 has been reassigned to TNEB based on G.O.Ms.No.1611 Revenue Department dated 16.07.1980 under Rule 13 and the remaining 1.9 Acre land in S.No.314/B was cancelled by him by an order dated 06.05.2002 and the same was reassigned to one Rasathi, Samiappan and Murugan of the said Pasuvapatti Village on the ground that he was not involved in cultivation directly.
4.With regard to the above allegation, what the illiterate person recalls is that as there was drought during the year 2000 to 2004, the cultivation was not possible and the same was conveyed orally and in writing to the fifth respondent and third respondent the District Collector. Moreover in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner, he has not been served the reported copy of fifth respondent's cancellation of assigned land to him vide assignment letter dated 06.05.2002, as well subsequent common reassignment order dated 10.07.2002 reassigning his land to the said three above upper caste persons mentioned above till this date. Further, the fifth respondent fraudulently addressed the said letter dated, 31.05.2007 not to his actual residential / home address but to the place of residence of his only son A.Subramani at Gandhi Nagar, Saminathapuram in Nanjai Uthukuli of Erode Taluk and District. It seemed that the fifth respondent had been looking for evidence to cancel his land assignment order and accordingly he sent the said letter to his son's address instead his permanent residential home address. The petitioner also submits that a similar letter was also addressed to him by the fourth respondent Joint Commissioner Land Reforms Erode by his letter dated 15.07.2008 conveying the same matter.
5.The petitioner further submits that as he had not received any reply with regard to his explanation in respect of the said allegation of not cultivating the land during the period between 2000 2004 by the fifth respondent, he immediately rushed to Chennai and represented case before the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai during April 2008 to the effect that there was acute draught during 2000 to 2004 and as such he could not cultivate the land assigned to him and moreover he was living in acute poverty line and requested to reassign the land to him so as to earn a livelihood.
6.The petitioner further submits that based on the said justifiable and reasonable explanation offered by him to the second respondent for not cultivating the same land at that point of time, the second respondent was pleased to pass an order made on 07.05.2012 after prolonged correspondences directing the District Collector Erode, the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms Erode and Tahsildar of Perundurai Taluk of Erode District as follows:
With regard to the matter referred to above in respect of assignment of land in favour of Mr.Aaraan son of Munian belonging to Velankattuvalasu, Thuyyampoondurai Village, who got assignment of land in Pasuvapatti Village of Perundurai Taluk of Erode District, was reexamined and accordingly they recommend to Mr.Aaraan as follows:
(2)The petitioner Mr.Aaraan has been assigned vide his office order No.MR4/177/17.70/C1/dated 31.12.1976 with an extent of 0.84 Acre in S.No.312 and 1.96 Acre in 314/B and totally 2.8 Acre surplus land in Pasuvapatti Village of Perundurai Taluk of Erode District.
(3)Thereafter, in S.No.98/2B (K/608 vide chalan 75 and S.No.2/B20/32 vide chalan 74, belonging to one Karuppan son of Munian and Karuppan son of Pappan totally to an extent of 6 Acre and 70 cent land was reassigned to Electricity Board under Rule 13 of Tamilnadu Land Reforms Act in GO.Ms. No.1611 Revenue Department dated 16.07.1980. Further after take over of land for the use TNEB, from the remaining Dry land vide MR4/177/1, 17.70/C1 dated 31.12.1976 an extent of 0.84 cent land in Survey No.312 and 1.96 Acre land in Resurvey No.4/2-11/6 totally 2.80 Acre surplus land was assigned to Aaraan.
(4)The land situated in S.No.314/B and 312 resurvey No.4/2 11-16 in Pasuvapatti Village of Perundurai Taluk of Erode District based on the order made on 31.12.1976 vide No.MR 4/177/17-70/J1 is recommended to the assignee Aaraan son of Muniyan belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
(5)Further Assignment order dated 10.07.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reform, Erode issued in favour of the Tmt.Rasathi W/o Kandasamy, Samiathal W/o Samyappan, Subbathal D/o Murugan belonging to the upper caste Gounders of the Pasuvapatti Village based on the forgery document by the Special Tahsildar Land Reforms, Erode. T.Kumar should be cancelled and reasssigned to Aaraan.
(6)The Erode District Collector, Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms Erode, Tahsildar Perundurai Taluk are accordingly conveyed that Aaraan was assigned 2.80 Acre land in MR4/177/17-70/C1 to an extent of 0.84 cent in survey No.312 and 1 Acre 96 cent in Survey No.314/B Resurvey No.4/2-11-16 in the said village. Further kist in the name of Aaraan as well R.S. copy and Ayan patta should be issued to him. Based on the compassionate grounds, they have recommended Aaraan's name for reassignment of land.
7.Accordingly the second respondent specifically declared denying 0.84 cent in S.No.312 assigned to the petitioner has been takeover by TNEB vide the said G.O. contrary to the observation by the fifth respondent in his letter dated 31.05.2007. The implied fact is that the fifth respondent Assistant Commissioner, and the fourth respondent the Joint Commissioner involved in the land grabbing criminal act with the aid of the Special Tahsildar Land Reforms T.Kumar along with the respondents 7 to 9 which requires criminal action against them.
8.The petitioner further adds that he has constantly been approaching the respondents concerned to implement the order dated 07.05.2012 by the second respondent. The petitioner further narrates that his life is also in danger and already an attempt on murder was made on his only son on 12.06.2009 reportedly by the respondents 7 9. The petitioner submits that the life of all the members of his family is under threat even now and solicits speedy administration of justice considering his age as well states as a Dalit member suffering mental agony with keeping poor health, living in utter poverty and threat to life for over 10 years. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that this Court direct the second respondent to implement his order dated 07.05.2012 as well direct to cancel common impugned assignment order dated 10.07.2002 by the fifth respondent and reassign the said 2.80 acre land in the Pasuvapatti Village to the lawful original assignee to the petitioner herein.
9.The respondents 1 to 6 have filed counter statement and submitted that the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court praying for a direction to the second respondent to implement the orders of second respondent dated 07.05.2012 and also to direct the District Collector, Erode to reassign the land to an extent of 0.84 acre in S.F.No.312 and 1.96 acre in S.F.No.314/B (Re-survey No.4/2-11 and 4/16 totalling 2.80 acres at Pasuvampatti Village in Perundurai Taluk of Erode District. It is submitted that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has filed this writ petition based on a forged document seeking reassignment of land to an extent of 2.80 acres, after 33 years of cancellation of assignment of 0.84 acre and 12 years of cancellation of assignment of 1.96 acres. It is submitted that the petitioner prayed for a direction to implement the order of the second respondent dated 07.05.2012. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is a forged document.
10.It is submitted that the impugned order has been verified in the office of the second respondent and fifth respondent and found to be forged. On verification, it is found that the order / document has not at all been issued by the Office of the second respondent or fifth respondent.
i.It is issued with no addressee and copy is marked to the petitioner. No document is issued in that manner;
ii.The signature of Commissioner itself is a forgery;
iii.The impugned order is not in official format and the language used in the contents of the order also is not in order;
iv.The impugned order is marked notice and not order / proceedings, by which it shows that it is obviously incorrect;
v.No MRIV reference number will be assigned in the Office of the Commissioner of Land Reforms;
vi.Two reference numbers are mentioned in the letter;
vii.No order / letter is issued in Government correspondences stating that the assignees belong to upper caste and therefore to cancel their assignment and to re-assign the land to the petitioner;
viii.When the third respondent called for remarks of writ petition filed by the petitioner, the fifth respondent in his letter dated 10.04.2014 stated that the letter issued by the Commissioner of Land Reforms available at Page 46 of the Typed set is a forgery document and therefore requested the third respondent to inform the genuineness of the letter issued by the third respondent dated 29.05.2012 available at page 50 of Typed set.
All these would clearly show that the impugned order itself is a forged document filed before this Court. Further, the petitioner has also not filed the impugned order in original in this Court, but prayed this Court to dispense with the production of original impugned order. The petitioner, only to get favourable orders from this Court, made forgery of the document. This document forgery is liable for criminal investigation.
11.The contents of the impugned order is that on the representation of the petitioner before the Commissioner of Land Reforms, the Commissioner of Land Reforms in the said notice has recommended the District Collector, Erode, Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode and Tahsildar, Perundurai to cancel the irregular assignment made to upper class people Rasathi, Samiathal and Subbathal on 10.07.2002 by way of forgery made by one T.Kumar against the land assigned to the petitioner to an extent of 2.80 acres in S.F.No.312 and 314/B by order dated 31.12.1976 and to re-assign the land to the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste.
12.It is also submitted that the petitioner was assigned an extent of 0.84 acre in S.F.No.312 and 1.96 acres in S.F.No.314/B of Pasuvampatti Village of Perundurai Taluk of Erode District on 31.12.1976. The petitioner, himself, in his statement before the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Erode on 20.08.1979 stated that the land assigned is 12 miles away from his residence and therefore he could not cultivate the land and requested to cancel the assignment and to assign land nearer to his residence. Therefore, the land to an extent of 0.84 acre in S.F.No.98/2A (Old No.312) assigned to the petitioner was cancelled on 21.8.1979 on the ground of not engaging in direct cultivation of land. The order of cancellation of assignment was served on the petitioner. The possession for rest of the land assigned to the petitioner i.e. S.F.No.4/2-11 and 16 (Old No.314/B) was handed over to the petitioner on 24.07.1992.
13.On the representation of the petitioner seeking to issue patta on 29.08.1994, the third respondent directed the field staff to inspect the land assigned and to verify his possession. The Special Revenue Inspector (Land Reforms) who inspected the land has reported on 29.11.1995 that the petitioner was not in possession and recommended for cancellation. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.1996, 08.01.1997, 19.03.2001 and 17.07.2001 directing him to show cause why his assignment shall not be cancelled for violation of conditions. The show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 05.12.1996, 11.01.1997 and he also attended the enquiries conducted by the third respondent. As the petitioner violated the conditions of assignment, the assignment made to him in S.F.No.4/2-11 and 16 (Old No.314/B) to an extent of 1.96 acres was also cancelled by order dated 06.05.202. Subsequent to the cancellation of assignment, re-assignment proceedings were initiated and after following the procedures laid down under the Rules, the land were re-assigned to 3 persons the Respondents 7 to 9 herein.
14.It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation of assignment of land to an extent of 0.84 acre in S.F.No.98/2A (Old No.312) dated 21.08.1979 before the appropriate forum at the appropriate time. Further, he has also not challenged the orders of cancellation of assignment of land to an extent of 1.96 acres in S.F.No.4/2-11 and 16 (Old No.314/B) dated 06.05.2002 before the appropriate forum. It is also submitted that the assignment made to him was cancelled on the ground of violation of conditions of assignment and after affording opportunities to the petitioner.
15.In these circumstances, the petitioner has created the forged document to unsettle the positions which were settled as early as in the years of 1979 and 2002 and after the interest of the third parties have also come in. The writ petition, based on the forged document, has been filed by the petitioner only to mislead the Court for getting the favourable orders of this Court, by wasting the precious time of this Court.
16.Having not exhausted the remedies provided under the Rules at the appropriate time and having no merits, the petitioner filed the present writ petition after 33 years of cancellation of assignment dated 21.08.1979 and 12 years of cancellation of assignment dated 06.05.2002, which cancellations had been done in accordance with the Rules as the petitioner violated the conditions of assignment, seeking re-assignment of land to an extent of 2.80 acres, based on the forged document of the second respondent dated 07.05.2012, which has not at all been issued by the second respondent. In view of the facts stated above that the impugned order itself is a forged one, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
17.The respondents 1 to 6 have filed additional counter statement and it is submitted that in this case filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7812 of 2014, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6, requesting this Court to dismiss the case on the ground that the impugned order itself is a forged document and the signature of the Commissioner of Land Reforms the Respondent No.2 herein is a forgery and that it has not been issued by the second respondent and also to direct the concerned authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings for using the forged documents before this Court to get favourable orders of this Court. It is submitted that the detailed counter affidavit has been filed citing various reasons to establish that the impugned order is a forged document.
18.It is now further submitted that in the meantime, the Director of Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai-4 was requested to examine the disputed document and to give the expert report about the signatures and the disputed document, by enclosing the copy of the disputed document / impugned order dated 07.05.2012 and also the sample letter issued by Commissioner of Land Reforms bearing full signature and also the sample letter format both in English and Tamil issued by the office. Then as requested by the Director of Forensic Sciences Department, the specimen signature of Commissioner of Land Reforms was also sent to the Director of Forensic Sciences Department on 07.08.2014, and as called for by the Director of Forensic Sciences Department in their letter dated 11.08.2014, genuine signatures / short signatures (initial) of the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Land Reforms on existing documents like official letters, orders, etc. preferably made during the date 07.05.2012 for examination was also sent.
19.It is submitted that after examination, the Deputy Director (Document Division) of Forensic Sciences Department in their letter dated 28.08.2014 has reported that after careful examination of documents received along with letter dated 22.08.2014 by the Scientific Officer and Document Expert and Deputy Director and Document Expert, Forensic Sciences Department the result of the examination is as follows:-
The red enclosed signatures with date stamped and marked A1 to A4 (Xerox) and S1 to S3 differs from the red enclosed signature with date similarly stamped and marked Q1 (Xerox) in the signature pattern and in the making of numerals.
20.It is submitted that the findings of the Deputy Director (Document Division) of Forensic Sciences Department is that the signature of Commissioner of Land Reforms differs from the signature made in the disputed document. This further clearly establishes and proves that the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 is a forged document. It is hence prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost and also to direct the concerned authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings for using forged documents before this Court, as prayed for in the Counter Affidavit by the respondents 1 to 6. It is also submitted that the report of the Deputy Director (Document Division) of Forensic Sciences Department dated 28.08.2014 and the certified copies of documents marked A1 to A4, S1 to S3 and Q1 are submitted to this Court as typed set of papers for kind perusal of this Court. It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
21.The seventh respondent has filed counter affidavit and states that the above writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to implement the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by him, in his proceedings Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70/C1 and to direct the third respondent, District Collector to reassign the land in question to him. It is true that the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Erode assigned a total extent of 2.80 acres in S.No.312 and 314/B in Pasuvapatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District to the writ petitioner on payment of consideration of Rs.221.65. The assignment order dated 26.12.1978 was passed subject to various conditions. As the writ petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed under the assignment order, the fifth respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15.10.2004 to the writ petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why the assignment made to him should not be cancelled. Inspite of notice dated 27.01.1996, 19.03.2000 and 17.07.2000 issued to the writ petitioner, he did not respond to the same.
22.She states that the assignment dated 26.12.1978 was therefore cancelled by the fifth respondent by his order dated 15.10.2004. The fifth respondent thereafter called for applications from eligible persons for assignment of the said land. The respondents 7 to 9 herein made applications to the fifth respondent requesting him to assign the land to them. The fifth respondent on being satisfied that respondents 7 to 9 herein are eligible to get an order of assignment passed an order dated 10.07.2002 in his proceedings Na.Ka.3779/2004/E4 assigning the land in question. The respondents 7 to 9 herein are in possession of the assigned lands and they are engaged in personal cultivation.
23.It is pertinent to note that though the writ petitioner was not in possession of the land in question, he executed a registered settlement deed dated 11.06.2009 settling the land to his son Subramanian. As the said settlee attempted to interfere with the possession of respondents 7 to 9 herein, a suit O.S.No.273 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif of Perundurai was filed against him for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 31.01.2012 and the same is still in force.
24.The present writ petition is filed on the ground that the second respondent in his order dated 07.05.2012 had directed the third respondent, District Collector, Erode to cancel the assignment order passed in our favour and to reassign the land in question to the writ petitioner. She states that there is no such order dated 07.05.2012 said to have been passed by the third respondent. She states that pursuant to the assignment order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the third respondent they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. They have not been issued any show cause notice by the second respondent before passing the alleged order dated 07.05.2012. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the basis of the alleged order dated 07.05.2012 which is a bogus one and the petitioner is attempting to mislead this Court with a bogus and fabricated order. It is therefore prayed that this Court may order an enquiry regarding the alleged order dated 07.05.2012 and to punish the writ petitioner for his willful and deliberate act of fabricating records in order to mislead this Court. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
25.The ninth respondent has filed counter affidavit in MP.No.2 of 2014 in WP.No.7812 of 2014 and stated that the petitioner herein had filed the above false writ petition with false averments which are contrary to the actual facts by suppressing the actual true facts. The ninth respondent submits that she was assigned with the said land in R.S.No.186/1B to extent of 0.52.5 Ars in Pasuvapatti Village, Perundurai Taluk by the fifth respondent herein on merits based on the application and subsequently she had taken over of the possession of the said lands vides the deed of assignment in M.R.4/177/17-70/E1 and Possession No.5/2002/Perundurai, dated 12.07.2002.
26.The ninth respondent submits that the actual facts is that the fifth respondent herein had assigned a total extent of 2.80 acres of land in S.No.312 and 314/B in Pasuvapatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District to the petitioner herein on the payment of consideration of Rs.221.65 vide the deed of assignment in Ref.177/MRIV/17.70 dated 26.12.1978. The said assignment was made subject to the various mandatory conditions which were stipulated in the said deed of assignment itself. Since the petitioner herein had not complied with the said mandatory conditions, the fifth respondent herein only after issuing the show cause notice on several occasions on various dates i.e. on 27.01.1996, 19.03.2001, 17.07.2001 (as per the information given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 6 dated 14.08.2014 in page No.6 para No.8(ii)) had cancelled the said assignment in favour of the petitioner herein by his order in N.M.R.4/177/E1, dated 06.05.2002, since there was no response from the petitioner herein.
27.The ninth respondent further submits that subsequently after the said cancellation of the said assignment, the fifth respondent had called for the applications for the assignment of the said land from the eligible persons. So accordingly the respondents 7 to 9 herein had applied for the said assignment of land to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent had assigned the said land to the respondents 7 to 9 herein on merits vides his order in Na.Ka.3779/2004/E4 dated 10.07.2002 based on their applications by following the mandatory procedures and handed over the possession to the ninth respondent herein vides the deed of assignment in M.R.4/177/17-70/E1 and possession No.5/2002/Perundurai, dated 12.07.2002 and from then she has been in the continuous possession of the said assigned land and personally cultivating the said land and had developed the said agricultural land by investing huge amounts and having no other property and source of incomer except the said assigned agricultural land and the agricultural income generating from the same. Further the petitioner's allegations that the respondents 7 to 9 had grabbed his property by force and the respondents 7 to 9 are belonging to land grabbing mafia group is false, baseless and made with ulterior intention and the petitioner is put to strict poof of the same. On contrary this respondent is belonging to a poor, decent and calm family and only leading her family with the income generated from agriculture.
28.The ninth respondent herein further humbly submits that after the said assignment in favour of the petitioner herein was cancelled on the ground of breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the assignment agreement by the petitioner then the said lands were assigned in favour of the respondents 7 to 9 and possessions were handed over to them by the fifth respondent herein even as early in 12.07.2002. The respondents 7 to 9 are in the continuous possession of the said lands by engaging in the personal cultivation in the said land from then and the petitioner herein is never in the possession of the said lands. The petitioner herein had not challenged the said impugned orders before the appropriate forum within the prescribed limitation period at that time, on the other hand had illegally executed a settlement deed dated 11.06.2009 by settling the said land to his son Subramanian. Since the said settlee i.e. Subramanian attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondents 7 to 9 herein by making use of the said illegal and void settlement deed, a suit in O.S.No.273 of 2010 for a relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai which was rightly decreed by considering the all the valid materials adduced by the parties on merits on 31.01.2012 and is still in force.
29.The ninth respondent submits that the above writ of Mandamus has been preferred by the petitioner herein for seeking a direction to the second respondent herein to implement his order in Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70/C1 and to direct the third respondent, the District Collector to reassign the land in dispute to the petitioner herein on the main ground that the second respondent herein had directed the third respondent herein, the District Collector, Erode to cancel the assignment order passed by the fifth respondent herein in favour of the respondents 7 to 9 herein. But it was informed by the second respondent through the counter affidavit of the respondents 1 to 6 in Page 3, 4 and para-5, 6 that such order was not passed by them and the said order is bogus and fabricated one.
30.The ninth respondent further submits that even assuming and without admitting that the said order of the second respondent was genuine, pursuant to the said assignment made in the favour of the respondents 7 to 9 by the fifth respondent herein, the respondents 7 to 9 have been in continuous possession by engaging in personal cultivation in the said land. So the respondents 7 to 9 who were the subsequent assignee of the said lands were neither made as a party in the said proceeding of the second respondent nor issued with any notice by giving reasonable opportunity to put forth their case by the second respondent at the time of passing of such order. The ninth respondent submits that the petitioner herein had filed the above writ petition based on the bogus and fabricated order dated 07.05.2012 and tried to get the relief prayed for by misleading this Court. Since it was curtailed by the respondents 1 to 6, he has come up with the above amendment petition for amending the prayer in the above writ petition.
31.The ninth respondent herein without prejudicing her right to defend this case, further submits that the above amendment petition dated 27.10.2014 in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.7812 of 2014 which was filed by the petitioner herein by amending the prayer of the writ petition from Grant an order of Interim Injunction, restraining from cultivation, improvement, lease, rent, mortgage, sale, transfer or alienation in any manner with regard to the land to the extent of 0.84 acre in Survey No.312 and 1.96 acre in Survey No.314/B, Resurvey No.4/2-11-16 and in whole 2.80 acre land at Pasuvapatti Village in Perundurai Taluk, Erode District which are under illegal possession from 10.07.2002 by the respondents 7 to 9 herein pending disposal of the above writ petition and issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of Writ, directing the second respondent to implement his order made on 07.05.2012 under Notice Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70-C1 in letter and spirit directing to the third respondent District Collector to reassign the land to the extent of 0.84 acres in Survey No.312 and 1.96 acres in Survey No.314/B, Resurvey No.4/2-11-16 and in whole 2.80 acre land at Pasuvapatti Village in Perundurai Taluk, Erode District which are under illegal possession from 10.07.2002 by the respondents 7 to 9 herein pending disposal of the above writ petition and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of Writ, directing the second respondent to implement his order made on 07.05.2012 under Notice Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70-C1 in letter and spirit directing to the third respondent District Collector to reassign the land to the extent of 0.84 acres in Survey No.312 and 1.96 acres in Survey No.314/B resurvey No.4/2-11-16 and in whole 2.80 acre land at Pasuvapatti Village in Perundurai Taluk, Erode District to the lawful original assignee the petitioner herein and report compliance with imposing of case cost and pass such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice to the new prayer Issue a Writ of Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to issuance of irregular and illegal impugned show cause notice dated 15.10.2004 in Na.Ka.37779/2004/E4 on extraneous consideration and consequent issuance of illegal common proceedings Na.Ka.3774/2004/E4 dated 10.07.2002 that was unserved on the petitioner herein and quash both the above along with the illegal and impugned assignment order dated 12.07.2002 by the fifth respondent, violating statutory conditions for assignment of surplus lands under TNLRs Act 1961 as well Supreme Court Guidelines and reassign the said land to an extent of 0.84 acre in S.F.No.312 (Old No.98/2A) and 1.96 acre in S.F.No.314/B (Re-Survey No.4/2-11 and 4/16) totaling to 2.80 acres at Pasuvapatti Village in Perundurai Taluk of Erode District to the original assignee petitioner herein and (ii) Set aside the order dated 31.12.2012 obtained by the respondents 7 and 8 by making fraud on the Court in O.S.No.273 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai of Erode District with imposing case cast and pass such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
32.The ninth respondent herein submits that the petitioner herein has preferred the above amendment petition belatedly only after the Government (respondents 1 to 6) had filed their counter and stated in their counter affidavit in page-3, 4 para-5, 6 that the order dated 07.05.2012 under Notice Ref.No.MR4/177/17-70-C1 was not passed by the second respondent and it was forged and fabricated one. The ninth respondent herein submits that further the petitioner has now come forward with the said change of prayer through amendment petition for issuance of the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the Impugned Notice dated 15.10.2004 in Na.Ka.3779/2004/E4, order in Na.Ka.3779/2004/E4 dated 10.07.2002 along with Impugned assignment order dated 12.07.2002 of the fifth respondent belatedly only on the invalid ground that the said order was not served to him and he is not aware of the said proceedings is totally negatived by the respondents 1 to 6 (Government) in their counter filed in the writ petition dated 14.08.2014 in page-6, para-8(ii).
33.The ninth respondent herein submits that further the petitioner has now come with another prayer through amendment petition to set aside the order dated 31.12.2012 obtained by the respondents 7 and 8 by making fraud on the Court in O.S.No.273 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai of Erode District with imposing case cost without preferring any appeal within the limitation period before the appellate Court is nothing but setting aside the said decree and judgment directly without resorting the appeal provision and bypassing the appeal provisions which is contrary to the law, invalid. If the said amendment of prayer is allowed in this stage, it will alter the character of the case and will cause prejudice to the respondents herein. So unless the said amendment petition praying for the above amendment as prayed for is dismissed, the respondents herein will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
34.The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Dalit Community and an illiterate. Hence, the fifth respondent herein had given an assignment of land to an extent of 2.80 acres of surplus land at Pasuvapatti Village. Out of the said land 20 cents had been taken by the Electricity Board. As per the assignment conditions non Scheduled Caste members are ineligible to receive the surplus land. The learned counsel further submits that the second respondent had issued notice dated 07.05.2012 and directed the respondents 3, 5 and 6 to cancel the illegal assignment of land to respondents 7 to 9. Further, the respondents 7, 8 and 9 are being caste Hindus, hence the learned counsel entreats the Court to assign the said land to the original assignee the petitioner herein.
35.The very competent Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submits that the second respondent had not issued any impugned order, as such the above writ petition is not maintainable, besides the Director of Forensic Services Department, Chennai was requested to examine the disputed document / impugned order. As such, the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition on this ground alone.
36.The highly competent counsel Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submits that the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 had been issued by the second respondent herein / the Commissioner of Land Reforms is not genuine. The petitioner had created a forged document and challenged the same before this Court, hence the prosecution will be initiated against the petitioner. The very competent counsel further submits that this Court cannot operate judicial power on a forged document produced by the petitioner to and in favour of the petitioner. Further, the forged document had been referred to the Forensic Department.
37.The learned counsel Mr.T.M.Karthikeyan appearing for the ninth respondent submits that the fifth respondent had assigned the land to an extent of 0.52.5 at Pasuvapatti Village, the order has been passed dated 12.07.2002. After observing all assignment conditions the land has been assigned to the ninth respondent and also respondents 7 and 8 after considering all illegibility norms, further, the ninth respondent is in possession since from the date of assignment i.e. 12.07.2002 and cultivating the said land continuously. The petitioner misconceived the case against the respondents. Further, the petitioner had executed a settlement deed to and in favour of his son dated 11.06.2009, the same was declared as null and void by the District Munsif Court, Perundurai in O.S.No.273 of 2010. The said decree and judgment has become final. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable.
38.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had not produced an original impugned order, besides the second respondent has categorically denied that he had not issued an impugned order, further the impugned order is a forged one created by the petitioner herein. Considering this aspect, the above writ petition is dismissed.
39.In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.06.2015
vs
Index: Yes.
Internet: Yes.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Erode 638 011.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Jawan's Complex,
Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Jawan's Complex,
Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
6.The Tahsildar,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District 638 052.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
vs
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.7812 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2014
24.06.2015