IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA WP.Nos.2590 to 2595/2009 & MP Nos.2 to 2 and 1 to 1/2009 1.G.Ramachandran 2.P.Subramani .. Petitioners in WP.No.2590/09 1.P.Subramani 2.M.Rajendran 3.S.Kumar 4.R.Krishnan 5.M.Krishnamoorthy 6.R.Bakiaraj 7.R.Muniammal .. Petitioners in WP.No.2591/09 1.K.Raman 2.R.Lakshmi 3.R.Krishnan 4.R.Thirumalai .. Petitioners in WP.No.2592/09 1.K.Elumalai 2.K.Venkateswaran 3.T.Kandan 4.T.Karunakaran .. Petitioners in WP.No.2593/09 1.S.Boominathan 2.S.Sankar 3.P.Ramasamy 4.P.Lakshmi Ammal 5.Saravanan .. Petitioners in WP.No.2594/09 1.A.Kannan 2.A.Kalidoss 3.A.babu 4.A.Balan 5.K.Viswanathan 6.K.Ramachandran .. Petitioners in WP.No.2595/09 Versus 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government And Director of Survey & Settlements, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District. .. Respondents in all the WPs
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon the records pertaining to the orders made in RP.Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 6 & 7/2008 dated 12.01.2009 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioners in Survey Nos.195, 195, 44/1, 175, 103/1,2,3,4 & 92/1 and 243, Puzhal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallore District.
For Petitioners
in all WPs : Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy,
Senior Counsel
For Respondents
in all WPs : Mr.V.Arun, AGP
COMMON ORDER
By mutual consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2.The above writ petitions arising out of the common and similar orders passed on the same date by the 1st respondent in respect of cancellation of patta granted to the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and as such, all the petitions are taken up together for final hearing and the following common order is passed.
3.The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order of the 1st respondent dated 12.01.2009 made in RP.Nos.4,5,8,9,6 & 7/2008 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective properties of the petitioners situated in Survey Nos.195, 195, 44/1, 175, 103/1,2,3,4 & 92/1 and 243, Puzhal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallore District.
4.[a]The case of the petitioners in the above writ petitions is to the effect that they are the absolute owners of their respective properties as per the survey numbers mentioned in each of the above said writ petitions. The petitioners have purchased their respective lands through the registered Sale Deeds and they are in effective and continuous possession and enjoyment of their properties. Therefore, the have applied for transfer of pattas in their names before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, on the strength of the respective registered Sale Deeds by placing reliance on the entries made in the Revenue Records etc.
[b]The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, after due inspection in respect of the respective properties of the petitioners and on consideration of relevant factors and records, passed detailed orders dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 in respect of the extent of the properties under the respective survey numbers possessed by the petitioners in the above writ petitions. The Assistant Settlement Officer, through the said orders, directed the Tahsildar, Ambattur, to issue the Ryotwari Pattas in terms of Section 11[a] of the Tamilnadu Established Estates [Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari] Act, 1948.
[c]Against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000, no appeal has been filed and as such, the said orders have become final and conclusive one as per section 64[c] of the Tamil Nadu Act, 26 of1948. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Ambattur, the 2nd respondent herein passed orders in his proceedings dated 27.09.2002, 27.11.2002 and 30.01.2003 directing to alter the entries in the Revenue accounts in relation to the aforementioned properties to be classified as Ryotwari lands by deleting earlier entries shown as “Government Poramboke-
Dry-Tharisu” and to issue Ryotwari Patta u/s.11[a] of the Act 26 of 1948 in favour of the petitioners.
[d]Five years thereafter, the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, issued individual show cause notices dated 21.09.2005 to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 respectively, should not be cancelled for certain alleged irregularities such as time barred claim, unsigned and unstamped application, failure to obtain statements to hold enquiry as per procedure contemplated under Act 26 of 1948 etc. The petitioners submitted detailed explanations dated 04.07.2006 to the said show cause notices. The petitioners have taken a stand that the said show cause notice itself is wholly without jurisdiction besides being contrary to the provisions contained under Act 26 of 1948 and no appeal is preferred against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 respectively.
[e]The District Collector, Tiruvallur, by his order dated 16.05.2007, directed the 2nd respondent to effect changes in the village accounts in relation to the aforesaid lands to the petitioners by cancelling the classification of lands as Ryotwari lands into Government Poramboke lands on or before 31.05.2007. The said order of the District Collector was challenged by the petitioners in WP.Nos.19848 and 19421/2007 and this court, by the order dated 03.10.2007, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order passed by the District Collector. Inspite of the said order of this court, the 2nd respondent did not re-effect the changes by cancelling the classification as Government Poramboke and converting the same into Ryotwari Patta lands. Therefore, the petitioners preferred another writ petition in WP.No.6095/2008 and this court, by the order dated 09.02.2008, directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioners for grant of Chitta and adangal. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued the Chitta and Adangal in respect of the said lands to the petitioners. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the lands have been classified only as Government Poramboke and such classification was made contrary to the
orders passed by this court dated 03.10.2007 in WP.Nos.19848 and 19421/2007.
[f]The petitioners sought to alienate their respective properties and when they went to the Sub Registrar Office at Redhills, to enquire about the guideline value of the property, they have been issued with a communication from the District Collector dated 28.03.2008 stating not to register any documents pertaining to various survey numbers including the petitioners’ survey numbers. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners preferred a writ petition in WP.No.16317/2008 and this court by the order dated 06.08.2008 allowed the writ petition and quash the order of the District Collector dated 28.03.2008 holding that the District Collector, Tiruvallur, has not authority or jurisdiction to pass such order.
[g]The petitioner also filed contempt petitions in Cont.P.Nos.980 and 1020/2008 complaining the wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this court by the respondents in not converting the revenue records and not registering the documents presented pursuant to the orders of this court. The petitioners received a communication dated 11.12.2008 calling upon them to attend an enquiry in respect of the show cause notice dated 21.09.2005. The 1st respondent, after enquiry, passed the order dated 12.01.2009 setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer cancelling the pattas already granted to the petitioners by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.714 [CT & RE] Department dated 29.06.1987 to the effect that the Assistant Settlement Officer cannot condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the said G.O. Being aggrieved against that, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking for the above said relief.
5.Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order dated 12.01.2009 of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that there is absolutely no provision under any statute prescribing time limit for claiming granting of patta in favour of the petitioners. It is contended that the 1st respondent exercised Suo Motu power after a period of 9 years and passed the impugned order on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 holding that the Assistant Settlement Officer cannot condone the delay for preferring applications for the grant of pattas within thirty days from 22.07.1987, from which date the said Government order, viz., G.O.Ms.No.714 came into force. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 have become final as per the statutory presumption as provided u/s.64[c] of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1984. It is submitted that the said order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer by invoking section 11[a] of the Act 26 of 1948 and there is no time limit fixed either under the said provision or the rules framed thereunder in G.O.Ms.No.2043 Revenue dated 05.08.1949 in exercise of the powers conferred u/s.67[i] and [ii] of the Act 26 of 1948. It is further contended that G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 does not clothe the first respondent with the power to deal with the cases coming u/s.11[a] of Act 26 of 1948.
6.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend that the Assistant Settlement Officer having been satisfied that the petitioners’ predecessors in title, were in possession of the lands as per the conditions stipulated u/s.11, held that they are entitled to for the grant of pattas. It is pointed out that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent only placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 and the other material factors have been overlooked by the 1st respondent in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the properties by the petitioners. It is also contended that the said Government Order mainly and exclusively deals with the amendment to various provisions relating to appeals and revisions and the said provisions are nothing to do with the original application seeking for the relief of grant of patta u/s.11[a] of the Act 26 of 1948. Therefore, it is contended that the 1st respondent has wrongly placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. Learned senior counsel would also point out that the very same question was considered by this court in respect of the very same similar matter and this court by the order dated 17.11.2009 in WP.No.13000/2009 has set aside the identical order passed by the very same 1st respondent in respect of the petitioners therein.
7.Per contra, Mr.V.Arun, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the 1st respondent also filed a detailed counter to all the above writ petitions. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.714 [CT & RE] Department dated 29.06.1987, the Assistant Settlement Officer is restricted to entertain any further appeal after the year 1987 beyond the prescribed period of thirty days from 22.07.1987, from which date, the said G.O., came into force. Therefore, it is submitted that the 1st respondent has rightly held that the applications submitted by the petitioners for grant of pattas, are beyond the period of limitation and as such, the Assistant Settlement Officer ought not to have entertained such petitions and the 1st respondent has rightly set aside the said orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 respectively. It is submitted that the respondents may be given liberty to initiate any action in a manner known to law on the ground of prescription of limitation, in the event of allowing the petitions.
8.I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions put forward on either side and also perused the materials available on record including the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 and the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 12.01.2009.
9.The undisputed fact remains that all these petitioners have purchased their properties under the respective survey numbers and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective properties and accordingly, they sought for the grant of pattas by preferring applications before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai. It is seen that the Assistant Settlement Officer, after due inspection and verification of records including the sale deeds and revenue records and having been satisfied that the petitioners’ predecessors in title were in possession of the lands as per the conditions stipulated u/s.11[a] of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, held that the petitioners are entitled to the relief of grant of pattas. Accordingly, orders have been passed by him on 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 respectively. It is pertinent to note that after the lapse of five years, the petitioners have been served with individual show cause notice dated 21.09.2005 calling upon them as to why the orders of the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai dated 19.07.2000 and 20.07.2000 respectively, should not be cancelled for certain alleged irregularities such as time barred claim, unsigned and unstamped application, failure to obtain statements to hold enquiry as per procedure contemplated under Act 26 of 1948 etc.
10.Now, the crux of the question involved in these matters is whether there is any time limit prescribed under any provisions of Act 26 of 1948. for claiming the relief of grant of pattas. The fact remains that there is no time limit fixed either under the provision u/s.11[a] of the Act 26 of 1948 or the rules framed there under in G.O.Ms.No.2043 Revenue dated 05.08.1949. The perusal of the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent 12.01.2009 reveals that the 1st respondent solely placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.714 [Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments] department dated 29.06.1987 for holding that the petitioners have not preferred the appeals within the stipulated period of 30 days from 22.07.1987, the date on which the said Government Order came into force for claiming the issue of pattas.
11.A perusal of the said G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 makes it crystal clear that the said order deals in respect of prescription of time limit for preferring appeals and revisions as per the amendment made to various rules. It is also pertinent to note that as far as the cases on hand are concerned, the petitioners preferred only the original applications seeking for the relief of grant of pattas and by no stretch of imagination, the said applications could be construed to be an appeal. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that G.O.ms.No.714 [CT & RE] Department dated 29.06.1987 is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant cases and the 1st respondent has wrongly placed reliance on such Government Order for setting aside the orders passed in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai for granting the relief of pattas in their favour. It is needless to state that there is absolutely no statutory rule or provision available prescribing any time limit for claiming grant of pattas.
12.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also rightly placed reliance on the unreported order of this court in WP.No.13000/2009 dated 17.11.2009 in respect of the identical order passed by the very same 1st
K.N.BASHA, J.
ap
respondent relating to the same question involved in the above writ petitions, more particularly, in respect of the reliance placed on G.O.ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. The learned Single Judge, in that matter, has categorically held that there is absolutely no statutory rule or provision available for prescribing any time limit for preferring application for grant of patta.
13.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court is constrained to set aside the impugned orders passed in RP.Nos.4,5,8,9,6 & 7/2008 by the first respondent dated 12.01.2009 and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.03.2010
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ap
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
And Director of Survey & Settlements,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.
WP.Nos.2590 to 2595/2009
