BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/04/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.3421 of 2011 V.Rajamani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The Tahsildar, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar Office, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2009 requesting him to surrender the lands in Survey No.290/7 to an extent of 67 cents and in Survey No.335/1 to an extent of 45 cents, Arasarkulam West Village, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, to the petitioner within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court. !For Petitioner ... M/s.T.K.Gopalan ^For Respondents... Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that his father borrowed a loan of Rs.500/-
from the Government under the Cashew Development Scheme in order to raise cashew
garden in his land and according to the scheme, he has to repay the loan after
five years at the beginning of the sixth year, in five annual installments with
an interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The petitioner’s father could not
repay the amount. As the amount was not repaid, the Revenue Inspector,
Arasarkulam, has taken over the land and brought this property for public
auction on 18.07.1973. As there were no bidders, the property was taken over by
the Government and the Revenue Inspector, Arasarkulam, himself bought the land
in favour of the Government on 18.07.1973. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Pattukkottai, in his order dated 06.12.1973, confirmed the sale.
Thereafter, the patta standing in the name of the petitioner’s father was also
cancelled and an extent of 67 cents in Survey No.290/7 and an extent of 45 cents
in Survey No.335/1 have been declared as Government lands.
2. After the demise of his father, he was not aware of the said
proceedings and therefore, he made a representation only in the year 2004
requesting the third respondent to hand over the lands which were taken over by
the Government, as he is ready and willing to repay the amount to the
Government. Subsequently, as per the representation, the District Collector,
Pudukkottai District, vide proceedings dated 11.08.2004, has directed the
second respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report on the basis of the
petitioner’s representation. Subsequently, the petitioner has remitted an amount
of Rs.2356.25 into the Treasury on 28.03.2008 and obtained No Due Certificate on
11.04.2008. Thereafter, he made a representation on 16.06.2009 to take
necessary steps to hand over the lands to him and till date, the lands in
question have not been handed over to him by the third respondent. Therefore,
he has come forward with the present petition seeking a mandamus directing the
third respondent to consider his representation dated 16.06.2009 requesting him
to surrender the lands to an extent of 67 cents in Survey No.290/7 and an extent
of 45 cents in Survey No.335/1.
3. When the matter was posted for admission, the learned Additional
Government Advocate took time to produce some documents relating to the enquiry
conducted. It is clear that the petitioner’s father who obtained loan long back
in the year 1962, could not repay the same and ultimately, the land itself
vested with the Government after it was brought for sale. The sale was
confirmed as early as on 06.12.1973 and the first representation was made by the
petitioner on 05.05.2004. There is no record to show what has transpired during
the interregnum period viz., from 1973 to 2004. When the first representation
was made to the first respondent on 05.05.2004, the first respondent vide his
proceedings dated 11.08.2004, had directed the second respondent to conduct an
enquiry and submit a report to the first respondent, no record is produced
insofar as to the conduct of enquiry or any orders passed pursuant to his
direction. After that, all of a sudden, the petitioner without any reference to
any order, has deposited a sum of Rs.2,356.25 on 28.03.2008 viz., four years
after his first representation and the direction to conduct enquiry and based on
this, the Tahsildar, Aranthangi, has issued No Due Certificate to the effect
that the loan obtained in CDL No.10/61-62 and CDL No.2/62-63 has been paid and
there is no due. Here also, no reference has been made as to how this amount
was recovered, how the amount was arrived at and what was the enquiry
proceedings. Now, based on such certificate, curiously, a representation is
made to the authority concerned to re-deliver the land which was taken over by
the Government way back in the year 1973 and that too, an extent of 1 acre 12
cents. Though the application seems to be an innocuous application to consider
the representation, the net result of the representation is to re-deliver the
land which was taken over by the Government way back in the year 1973 without
any enquiry at all.
4. In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention a Division Bench
decision of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others,
reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was a party. In the said judgment, we
have culled out the circumstances as to when a Mandamus can be given and on what
occasions, the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations
leads to drastic consequences. Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed,
this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and
again. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:-
“19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the
connivance of “pliable” authorities have misused the direction “to consider”
issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-
barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground
that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable
time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an
innocuous prayer to direct the authority to “consider” and dispose of the
representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to
“consider”, the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of
the court directing him to “consider” the grant of relief. Instances are also
not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating
to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or
understood the order “to consider” as directing grant of relief sought in the
representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have
been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in
pursuance of orders to “consider”, may be on account of ignorance, or on account
of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court’s
direction to “consider” the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between
the person making the representation and the authority deciding it.
Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular
service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the
orders “to consider”.
Therefore, considering that the petitioner now wants to revive the stale claim
which was made way back in the year 1973 merely because he has deposited a sum
of Rs.2356.25 into the Government Treasury without any order, the mandamus
sought for re-delivery of the property itself cannot be given.
Under those circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and the
same is dismissed. No costs.
srm
To
1.The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Tahsildar Office,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District.