Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In the instant case, the Ryotwari who was having a right of conditional patta, has not exercised his option for change, as per Rule 16 of the Rules in the form prescribed and therefore, the conditional Ryotwari patta granted to the petitioner's father has become final and whether the claim of the petitioner that he can also apply for grant of patta or transfer the same in his name with similar option available to the original Ryotwari, with an option to change the condition to form of patta with fair rent fixation in order to gain the absolute right over the lands in favour of him, can be done, as the Settlement Officer has assigned the land with condition.

21. Whether such an option is made to the competent authority and whether such an option is available to the petitioner after the prescribed time limit as per the Rules, have to be examined. It is pointed out that as per Rule 43 of the Rules, the power is vested with the Tahsildar of the local jurisdiction for accepting the option exercised by the service holder with regard to Section 21(3) of the Act.

22. In this case, for fixation of fair rent or to accept the option exercised by the service holder under Section 21(3) of the Act, the Tahsildar is competent to decide the option exercised by the service holder. The question of exercising the option by a service holder, is a matter concerned with the petitioner's claim, which is to be examined as per the above provision. In view of the above power conferred upon the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar, Hosur, has taken up the application made by the petitioner and considered the claim of the petitioner for accepting the option of change over from the service holder to fair rent fixation. The Tahsildar, Hosur, in his proceedings dated 5.8.1996 in ROC.469/96 C2, passed an order to the effect that as per their office proceedings dated 5.7.1996 in ROC.469/96 C2, the fair rent was fixed in respect of G.Nos.33 etc., of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, for the purpose of deleting the condition imposed in patta No.232 imposing that the pattadar should perform Poojas to Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple. It is also stated in the said proceedings dated 5.8.1996, that in his application, the writ petitioner-S.Nagaraj has stated that he has remitted a sum of Rs.54,503/- in chalan No.215, dated 5.8.1996 in respect of S.No.425/1A and another sum of Rs.24,503/- in chalan No.217, dated 5.8.1996 in respect of S.No.420/3B of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk at the State Bank of Mysore, Hosur and requested to delete the conditions aforesaid from the patta in respect of S.Nos.425/1 and 426/3B. It is further stated in the said proceedings dated 5.8.1996 that inasmuch as the entire amount fixed as fair rent in respect of G.Nos.425/1A and 426/3B of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, has been remitted by the applicant, it was ordered that the condition of performing Poojas to Devaraja Swamy Temple for these survey numbers, were ordered to be deleted and these two survey numbers were ordered to be registered in the last patta of the son of Sudanatha Dikshithar.

32. On a perusal of the entire records, what transpires is that though the procedure prescribed under Form No.17 is followed by the respondents, the procedures contemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules, have not been followed by the competent authority before cancelling the patta in the name of the petitioner. Of course, it is a matter for the competent authority to go into the very object and tenet of the grant of conditional Ryotwari patta for a particular institution, namely the Temples in the instant case and if there is a failure on the part of the petitioner in respect of such performance and if the option is not exercised in the manner as provided under Rule 16 and thereafter, whether such option can be accepted beyond the prescribed time limit, are all the matters for the concerned authority to examine and enquire, after following the procedures and thereafter, it can be decided on what right the petitioner is entitled to. The respondents having not followed the requisite procedures as provided under the Act and the Rules, the impugned order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the first respondent, i.e. the Sub-Collector, Hosur, suffers from procedural irregularity and infirmity and the same cannot be sustained and the matter requires re-consideration by the competent authority.

34. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside. However, looking into various factors and the object of the conditional Ryotwari patta and the manner in which the option has been exercised, the matter requires detailed re- consideration by the competent authority, and therefore, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration and passing orders, after following the procedures contemplated under Rules 16, 19 and 33(1) to (7) of the Rules and the other provisions of the Act and the Rules, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and on a perusal of the entire records. It is open for the parties in the Writ Petition, the persons concerned and the stake-holders in this case to raise all the contentions which are all agitated in this Writ Petition, before the competent authority. The competent authority shall pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this Writ Petition, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.