Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name P.L. Ramachandran, claiming himself to be the District Secretary, Communist Party of India, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District, filed this Public Interest Litigation, challenging the order dated 05.04.1995, passed by the Director of Settlement, Madras 600 005, issuing patta to one A.L.A.R.V.S.M. Narayanan Chettiar, the fourth respondent, through Power Agent K. Premchandar, the fifth respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: There are about thirty tenants, who are poor agricultural labourers, coolies, barbers and dhobies, having their residence in Survey No.82/1 of an extent of 3.78 acres, Survey No.82/3 of an extent of 0.64 acres and Survey No.87/2 of an extent of 1.36 acres in Amaravathi Pudur Village, Karaikudi Circle, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District. Without an enquiry as to who are in possession of the property and without any notification or publication on the issue of patta, the first respondent passed the impugned order. The act of issuing patta for the land of an extent of 5.78 acres to a person, who is not in possession and who is not a landless, but a Zamindar, is manifestly illegal and ultra vires. No opportunity was given to landless poor people and the first and third respondents acted in a hasty manner and the impugned order was passed in violation of all canons of law. 3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that one K. Prem Chander, Power Agent of A.L.A.R.V.S.M. Narayanan Chettiar applied for patta in respect of S.No.82/1 & 3 and 87/2 of Amaravathipudur Village of Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, after spot inspection, by proceedings dated 02.03.1995, recommended for grant of patta in respect of the above said survey numbers. The then Director of Survey and Settlement after conducting enquiry, condoned the delay in making representation by the individual as per G.O.Ms.No.1400 C.T. & R.E. Department, dated 21.11.1975, and later, granted patta in respect of the above survey numbers in his proceedings dated 05.04.1995. The first respondent had issued a notice to one K. Premchander, to appear in person on 23.03.1995 for personal enquiry with relevant records to substantiate his claim over the property in question. The first respondent had issued a notice to one K. Premchander, to appear in person on 23.03.1995 for personal enquiry with relevant records to substantiate his claim over the property in question. There is no provision in the relevant Rules for giving notice for a public enquiry. The third respondent, Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, sent his inspection notes only based on the local inspection and local enquiry. It was also left open to the occupants to place their case before the Director of Survey and Settlement, first respondent, before whom the enquiry was pending. There is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 5. Before going into the relief claimed in the writ petition, it is useful to refer the suit filed by AL.AR.V.SM. Narayanan Chettiar, 4th respondent herein, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, in O.S.No.6 of 1988. The State of Tamilnadu represented by the Collector of Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District at Sivaganga is the defendant. The suit properties are land and building in Survey Nos.82/1, 82/3 and 87/2. The relief prayed therein was for an injunction, restraining the defendant - State of Tamil Nadu acting through its officers from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit was contested by both parties. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents Exs.A.1 to A.21 in support of his claim. On the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. The Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. The issues framed in that suit are: "(i) Whether the suit properties belong to the plaintiff? (ii)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit properties?" On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties as well as the provisions of Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition Act (Tamil Nadu Act 26/48), the learned Subordinate Judge, by judgment and decree dated 09.08.1989, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. It is not in dispute that the said decree had become final as the defendant-State did not prefer any appeal. It is not in dispute that the said decree had become final as the defendant-State did not prefer any appeal. As said earlier, the plaintiff therein is the 4th respondent in this writ petition. 6. The said 4th respondent, A.L.A.R.V.S.M. Narayanan Chettiar through his power agent K.Premchander, applied for patta in respect of lands in S.No.82/1 & 3 and 87/2 of Amaravathipudur Village of Karaikudi Taluk of Sivaganga District. Based on the application of the 4th respondent, the first respondent directed the third respondent to inspect and submit a report. Field Inspection report, dated 23.02.1995, of the Assistant Settlement Officer, third respondent herein, which is available in the typed set of papers filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, shows that the third respondent inspected the land in question on 23.02.1995 in the presence of applicant (4th respondent herein) and the Village Administrative Officer concerned. In the report, it is noted that all the above mentioned Survey Numbers, viz., 82/1 & 3 and 87/2, before settlement were treated as jameen patta, but after enforcement of settlement, they were wrongly treated as Government Dry Poramboke. The report also refers that even before settlement under the Inam Abolition Act, the land in the above said three survey numbers was in possession of the applicant (4th respondent) who had constructed houses therein. The following Inspection report of the Assistant Settlement Officer is relevant. "/////// gpu!;jhg epy';fs; Kw;wpYk; ehd; ghh;itapl;l nghJ fPnH Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgo mDgtj;jpypUe;J tUfpwJ/ g[y vz; 82/1 (3/78) ,e;j epyj;jpw;F tlf;nf. uhnk!;tuk; brd;id rh!;tj uapy;nt ,Ug;g[g;ghij bry;fpwJ/ fpHf;nfa[k;. bjw;nfa[k; tPjpahf cs;sJ/ nkw;nf. fhiuf;Fo njtnfhl;il nuhL bry;fpwJ/ ,e;j epyj;ijr;Rw;wpYk; fhk;gt[z;L Rth; fl;lg;gl;ljpy; tlg[wKk;. fpHf;nfa[k;. nkw;nfa[k;. Rth; ,oe;Js;sjhy; fy;fhy; Cd;wp Ks; fk;gp fl;o ntyp nghlg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;j epyj;jpd; eLnt xU jhh;R fl;ll tPL cs;sJ/ ghHile;j tl;lf;fpzW cs;sJ/ Kjph;e;j tajhd ku';fs; epw;fpd;wd/ jhh;R fl;llj;jpy; fhiuf;Fo m ry; epiyak; thliff;F tplg;gl;L ele;J tUfpwJ/ tlf;nf xU Tiu bfhl;lif. bjw;nf tPL fl;o thliff;F tplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;nf filfs; fl;o thliff;F tplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;jf;filfs; tPLfs; gyfhykhf ,Ue;J tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ g[y vz;/82-3 (0/64) ,e;j epyj;jpy; tPL fl;o thliff;F tplg;gl;L tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ nkYk; xU tl;lf;fpzW cs;sJ/ tPLfs; aht[k; gy Mz;Lfshf ,Ue;J tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ g[y vz;/87-2 (1/64) ,e;j epyj;jpy; tPLfs; fl;oa[k;. filfs; fl;oa[k; thliff;F tplg;gl;L tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ Rw;wpYk; fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; fl;o ,oe;J fplf;fpwJ/ ,uz;L tl;lf; fpzW cs;sJ/ tPLfs; aht[k; fpzWk;. gy Mz;LfSf;F Kd;gpUe;nj ,Ue;J tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ nkw;fz;l K:d;W epy';fspYk;. filfs; fl;oa[k; thliff;F tplg;gl;L tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ Rw;wpYk; fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; fl;o ,oe;J fplf;fpwJ/ ,uz;L tl;lf; fpzW cs;sJ/ tPLfs; aht[k; fpzWk;. gy Mz;LfSf;F Kd;gpUe;nj ,Ue;J tUtjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ nkw;fz;l K:d;W epy';fspYk;. tptrha ky;yhjthW tPLfs; fl;o mDgtpj;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ ,e;j K:d;W epy';fSk; gy Mz;LfSf;F Kd;gpUe;nj gl;lh g[";ir (uaj;Jthhp) ahf ,Ue;J tptrhakpy;yhj kidaplkhf mDgtpj;J te;jjhf bjhptjhy; ,e;j epy';fs; g[y vz;fs; 82-1 (3/78). 82-/3 (0/64). 87-2 (1/36) Mfpaitfis $kPd; xHpg;g[ rl;lk; 26-48. brf;rd; 19 gphptpd;go chpa tpjpKiwfis mDrhpj;J uaj;Jthhp gl;lh tH';fyhk;/ xk;/ //////////////////////// cjtpepythpj;jpl;l mYtyh;. kJiu 20/" 7. The above report was forwarded to the first respondent by letter dated 02.03.1995. The said report was relied on by the first respondent while passing the impugned order on 05.04.1995. A perusal of the inspection report of the Assistant Settlement Officer shows that he personally verified the land in the survey numbers and noted the existence of houses and also some shops let out to various persons. He also characterised the land as dry non-agricultural land and recorded that the same is being used as house sites and recommended for grant of riotwari patta as per Section 19 of Inam Abolition Act. 8. Though Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondents 1 to 3 misused their power and erroneously granted patta in favour of the 4th respondent, as said earlier, the 4th respondent obtained a decree against the State in respect of the very same survey numbers as early as on 09.08.1989. As we have already noticed, there is nothing on record about filing of appeal against the said judgment and decree. Apart from this, on receipt of application from the power of attorney of 4th respondent, the first respondent directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to submit a report with reference to the claim of the applicant, and the third respondent personally inspected all the three survey numbers and noted the existence of damaged buildings surrounded by compound wall. Had the tenants been in occupation, they would have raised an objection or at least informed of their possession and occupation to the Assistant Settlement Officer, when he personally inspected the survey numbers in question. If they are really interested, they would have sent representation either to the Settlement Officer or to the higher official, i.e., Director of Settlement, Chennai, highlighting their grievance or entitlement. If they are really interested, they would have sent representation either to the Settlement Officer or to the higher official, i.e., Director of Settlement, Chennai, highlighting their grievance or entitlement. Admittedly, no such recourse was taken either by the petitioner or by persons alleged to be in occupation or in possession of the land in question. Learned Additional Government Pleader also placed before us the Inspection report, dated 23.02.1995, of the Assistant Settlement Officer and his report, dated 02.03.1995, to the Director of Settlement as well as the impugned order, dated 05.04.1995, granting patta in favour of 4th respondent herein. 9. On going through all the materials including the judgment and decree, dated 09.08.1989, made in O.S.No.6 of 1988, on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai, and in view of the factual conclusion arrived at by the Assistant Settlement Officer based on his inspection that there existed damaged houses surrounded by compound wall and also of the fact of condoning the delay by the authority concerned in filing the application, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the petitioner. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the decision arrived at by the first respondent. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.