Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2185 (MAD)

Tmt. Annammal v. State of T. N.

2010-05-12

ELIPE DHARMARAO, M.VENUGOPAL

body2010
Elipe Dharmarao, ACJ.:-Since both the matters are inextricably interconnected with each other, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. An extent of 7.30 acres of agricultural land in Veerapandi village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to one Rangammal, was declared as 'surplus', vide the notification issued under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 on 25.2.1984. Thereafter, by the proceedings in Ref.No.377/MRIV/17-70-4, dated 31.3.1984, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Erode, has assigned the land in favour of the following five persons: 1.Tmt.Karuppayal (mother-in-law of the first petitioner in W.P.No.25844/01) 2.Tmt.Palaniammal (petitioner in W.P.No.372/2002) 3.Thiru Kandasamy (second petitioner in W.P.No.25844/2001) 4.Thiru Karuppannan (Husband of the third petitioner in W.P.No.25844/2001) 5.Thiru K.R.Ramasamy 3. In the assignment order, it has been mentioned in Para No.2 that a notice in Form 'B' inviting applications from the eligible persons was issued on 25.2.1984 and it was published in the village on 26.2.1984 and in response to the said notice, eight persons have applied for assignment within the expiry of time of 'B' notice and in Para No.3 it has been mentioned that a notice in Form 'D' inviting objections was issued on 27.3.1984 and published in the village on 28.3.1984 and no objections were received from any quarter towards assignment of surplus lands in the village and an enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Erode on 30.3.1984. 4. 4. In the said order of assignment itself in para No.5 it has been mentioned that the assignment is made 'subject to the terms and conditions of assignment as laid down in Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (DSL) Rules, 1965 and also subject to the conditions imposed by Government from time to time.' It has further been stated that 'the above assignees are informed that the land value to be remitted by them including the value of the wells, trees, structures, if any, in the land assigned to each of them, will be intimated in the notice to be issued in Form 'F and they should remit the first instalment of land value on receipt of the said notice and execute necessary deed of assignment in Form 'F' and this order (of assignment) will take effect only after the execution of 'F' deed.' It has further been made clear that 'if any of the assignee fails to remit the land value (first instalment) within the time limit fixed, this order (of assignment) will cease to be valid and operative as far as defaulter is concerned and no further notice will be issued.' 5. Thereafter, from the materials placed on record, it is seen that the necessary deed of assignment in Form 'F' has not been executed by any of the beneficiaries. While so, the respondents herein by name K.Natarajan; A.Papathi and P.Natarajan have filed Revision Petitions in R.P.No.32 of 1998 (by K.Natarajan) and R.P.No.33 of 1998 (by A.Papathi and P.Natarajan), challenging the assignment order dated 31.3.1984 on various grounds. The Land both Commissioner, Chennai, by the proceeding dated 2.11.1998 dismissed the Revision Petitions. Questioning the said order of the Land Commissioner, the above said three persons (i) K.Natarajan, (ii) A.Papathi and (iii) P.Natarajan filed revision petitions before the Government, under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The Land both Commissioner, Chennai, by the proceeding dated 2.11.1998 dismissed the Revision Petitions. Questioning the said order of the Land Commissioner, the above said three persons (i) K.Natarajan, (ii) A.Papathi and (iii) P.Natarajan filed revision petitions before the Government, under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The Government, by the order in G.O.Rt.No.79, Revenue (L.Ref.) 3 (2) Department, dated 10.2.2000, having observed that the publication of form 'B' was not done in accordance with law and that the Authorised Officer, without verifying the publication of Form 'B' in the Tahsildar's office, District Revenue Office and Panchayat Union Office, published Form 'D' and thus the procedure regarding publication of Forms 'B' and 'D', as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, has not been followed. With such observations, the Government allowed the revision petitions filed by the objectors and set aside the order passed by the Land Commissioner, dated 2.1.1998 in D1/RP.Nos.32 & 33/98 (L.Ref.) and directed the Land Commissioner, Erode, to advise the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms to start afresh the assignment of land, following the rules under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. 6. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the Government, the beneficiaries have filed Special Revision Petitions 43 of 2000 and 33 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Mrs.Karuppayal and R.Karuppannan, the beneficiaries, died and hence the daughter-in-law of the said Karuppayal (the first petitioner in W.P.No.25844 of 2001) by name Annammal and the wife of Mr.Karuppannan by name Mrs.Kaliyammal (the third petitioner in W.P.No.25844 of 2001) were brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased beneficiaries. The Special Appellate Tribunal, by its common order 6.12.2001, dismissed both the revision petitions filed by the beneficiaries or their representatives, as a result, these two writ petitions were filed by some of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 7. The Special Appellate Tribunal, by its common order 6.12.2001, dismissed both the revision petitions filed by the beneficiaries or their representatives, as a result, these two writ petitions were filed by some of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 7. Before the Special Appellate Tribunal, two separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of P.Natarajan and A.Pappathi (respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.No.25844/2001 and respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.372 of 2002), justifying the assignment in favour of the beneficiaries and further submitting that some third parties have misused their names as if they filed revision before the Land Commissioner and also before the Government and further stated that they are not at all aggrieved against the assignment of land made in favour of the beneficiaries as they do not have any regular income and that they did not pursue before any forum against the petitioners herein. Much reliance has been placed on the part of the petitioners on the said counter affidavits filed by the revision petitioners P.Natarajan and A.Pappathi. In the light of the counter affidavits filed on the part of the said revision petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal, distancing themselves from the litigation initiated in their names, it is not necessary for us to consider the claims made in the names of these revision petitioners P.Natarajan and A.Pappathi. The other respondent viz. K.Natarajan (4th respondent in W.P.No.25844 of 2001 and 5th respondent in W.P.No.372 of 2002) stiffly contests the matters. Therefore, we have to consider the rival claims of the parties, in the light of the law governing the subject. 8. The fact is that the assignment order was passed on 31.3.1984 by the Authorised Officer and the Revision Petitions in R.P.Nos.32 and 33 of 1998 were filed in the year 1998. A strong objection has been raised on the part of the beneficiaries or their representatives that this long delay itself should have been taken into consideration by the Government, while passing the orders of cancellation of assignment, since it has affected their accrued rights as they are enjoying the lands after assignment. A strong objection has been raised on the part of the beneficiaries or their representatives that this long delay itself should have been taken into consideration by the Government, while passing the orders of cancellation of assignment, since it has affected their accrued rights as they are enjoying the lands after assignment. But, on the part of the contesting respondent and also the State, it has been argued that the conditions of assignment have not been complied with by the beneficiaries and not even a single pie has been paid by them towards the cost and therefore, the possession could not be said to be in the hands of the beneficiaries or their representatives and since there are material irregularities in the assignment of land, the Government has considered it fit and proper to cancel the assignment order, further directing the Land Commissioner, Erode to advice the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms to start afresh the proceedings regarding the assignment of land under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. It has further been submitted that the Special Appellate Tribunal has considered all the aspects in their proper perspective and has dismissed the revision petitions, further directing the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode to receive the applications for assignment from the revision petitioners or any other person for assignment and the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the Authorised Officer for assignment of surplus lands and put forth their claims and objections before the assigning authority and after considering the claims of the petitioners and their objections and others, the said Authority was directed to pass a fresh order of assignment under Rule 8 of the said Rules in accordance with law. Citing the said order of the Special Appellate Tribunal, it has been submitted on the part of the contesting respondent and also the State that no prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the beneficiaries or their representatives, since an illegal and irregular order of assignment has been cancelled by the Government with a direction to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. On such arguments, they have prayed to confirm the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal. 9. Before entering into the fray of the delay, we must see whether the assignment in favour of the beneficiaries is a complete one. On such arguments, they have prayed to confirm the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal. 9. Before entering into the fray of the delay, we must see whether the assignment in favour of the beneficiaries is a complete one. As has already been extracted supra, the order of assignment has been passed with some pre-conditions to be satisfied. It has specifically been made clear therein that the order of assignment will take effect only after the execution of 'F' deed and that the land value to be remitted by the beneficiaries including the value of the wells, trees, structures, if any in the land assigned to each of them, to be intimated in the notice to be issued in form 'F'. On verification of the entire original files, the Special Appellate Tribunal has arrived at a factual conclusion that no such deeds have been executed by the beneficiaries. It is also not the case of the beneficiaries that they have executed the 'F' deeds and effected some payment, which is a pre-condition for commencing/completing the process of assignment. Therefore, it is clear that no payment has been effected by the beneficiaries and no 'F' deed has also been executed on their part. 10. It has been submitted on the part of the beneficiaries or their representatives that one Mr.Perumal (brother of K.Natarajan/the fifth respondent in W.P.No.372 of 2002) has filed W.P.No.4473 of 1984, challenging the assignment made by the Government and obtained an order of injunction from this Court, which came to be dismissed during the year 1994 and as a result of the order of injunction, restraining the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) from further pursuing the order of assignment passed by him, by issuing notices under Form 'E' and Form 'F', no further steps could be taken by the authorities and therefore, the Special Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the beneficiaries failed to pay the instalments in accordance with the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), when the amount payable is yet to be decided by the said authority. 11. 11. From the above facts it is clear that because of pendency of the above said Writ Petition on the file of this Court with an order of injunction passed therein, the authorities could not issue the notices under Forms 'E' and 'F' and when the authority has not arrived at the amount payable by the beneficiaries, by issuing Form 'F', the beneficiaries or their representatives could not be fastened with the responsibility of not paying the instalments. But, on the other hand, this fact further fortifies the stand of the Government that the assignment has not attained any finality and the beneficiaries could not claim any right over the lands, in the absence of execution of Deed of Assignment in Form 'F'. In the absence of non-compliance of the pre-conditions, for one reason or other, there cannot be any doubt to hold that the assignment order dated 31.3.1984 has not attained any finality, so as to vest any interest or right on the beneficiaries or their representatives. 12. The other objection raised on the part of the beneficiaries is that the revision petitions in R.P.Nos.32 and 33 of 1998 have been filed in the year 1998 i.e. after a long period of fourteen years and therefore, barred by limitation. It has also been submitted that only on the dismissal of W.P.No.4473 of 1984 in the year 1994, filed by his brother, the contesting respondent (Mr.K.Natarajan) has filed the revision petition before the Land Commissioner along with the other respondents A.Pappathi and P.Natarajan. Since the said Pappathi and P.Natarajan, have filed counter-affidavits before the Tribunal below distancing themselves from the proceedings initiated by misusing their names, we need not have to traverse into the facts of Revision Petition No.33 of 1998. Drawing source from this averment of the petitioners, it has been submitted on the part of the contesting respondent that as there is a proceeding pending before the Court, till the year 1994, the delay, if any, in filing the revision petition before the Land Commissioner should be counted only from the date of completion of the said writ proceedings and as the revision petition has been filed in the year 1998, the same is well within the period of limitation of five years as prescribed under Rule 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules. 13. 13. Though this argument appears to be fancy, the legal position is otherwise. To appreciate this aspect, we shall now extract Rule 11(3) hereunder: "(3) The Land Commissioner may, at any time, of his own motion within a period of five years from the date of the order of assignment or the date of the order of the appellate authority, as the case may be, set aside, cancel, revise or in any way modify the order of assignment or the order of appeal or revision or issue such directions as he may deem fit, if he is satisfied that the order was grossly inequitable. If he is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the order was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation or that the assignee is not eligible for assignment or that the extent assigned together with other lands if any held by the assignee or the members of his family other than a Co-operative Society exceeds the limits specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 5, he may exercise such powers without any limit of time. He may also issue such directions as he may deem fit even while the proceedings are in progress before the assigning authority or the appellate authority." 14. The first part of this Rule fixes a time limit of five years for the Land Commissioner to exercise his power to set aside, cancel, revise or in any way modify the order of assignment and the period of limitation should start from the date of the order of assignment or the order of the appellate authority. Since in the case on hand, admittedly, no appeal has been filed by any of the aggrieved parties challenging the assignment, the period for filing the Revision Petition expires after completion of five years from the date of assignment. As there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the aggrieved parties have filed the revision petitions after fourteen years from the date of assignment, it cannot be said that they have filed the revision petitions within the time limit prescribed under the first part of Rule 11(3). As there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the aggrieved parties have filed the revision petitions after fourteen years from the date of assignment, it cannot be said that they have filed the revision petitions within the time limit prescribed under the first part of Rule 11(3). But, that does not mean that the Land Commissioner cannot entertain any such revision petition after the lapse of such a period, since the second part of this Rule 11(3) clearly says that if the Land Commissioner is satisfied that there is a material irregularity in the procedure or that the order of assignment has been passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation or that the assignee is not eligible for assignment or that the extent assigned together with other lands if any held by the assignee or the members of his family other than a Cooperative Society exceeds the limits specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the Land Commissioner may exercise such revisional powers without any limit of time. In the case on hand, the revision petitions have been filed on various grounds including that of material irregularity, non-compliance of the mandatory rules and the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the filing of the revision Petition by the contesting respondent before the Land Commissioner and entertaining the same by the Land Commissioner cannot be said to be barred by limitation, in view of the powers granted to the Land Commissioner in the second part of Rule 11(3). Therefore, this argument advanced on the part of the writ petitioners is liable only to be rejected. 15. The other argument advanced on the part of the writ petitioners is that before passing the order of cancellation, no notice, as required under Rule 11(6), has been issued to them by the Government and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated and on this sole ground, the order of cancellation of assignment passed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.79, dated 10.2.2000, shall be set aside. 16. We have given our thorough consideration to this argument advanced on the part of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 17. G.O.Rt.No.79, dated 10.2.2000, has been passed by the Government, pursuant to the Revision Petition filed by the contesting respondent and others under Rule 11(4). 16. We have given our thorough consideration to this argument advanced on the part of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 17. G.O.Rt.No.79, dated 10.2.2000, has been passed by the Government, pursuant to the Revision Petition filed by the contesting respondent and others under Rule 11(4). Rule 11(6) says that 'no order under this rule shall be passed without giving an opportunity to the assignee of being heard.' 18. Admittedly, as has already been observed by us supra, though the orders of assignment were passed by the Government, it has not attained finality, so as to call the beneficiaries thereunder as 'assignees', as Form 'F' has not been executed by any of the beneficiaries. In view of the strict wordings in Rule 11(6) and when the beneficiaries are not at all the 'assignees' within the true meaning of the Act and the Rules, they cannot at all be in legal possession and enjoyment of the lands and hence, no obligation is cast on the Government to comply with Rule 11(6). That being so, there is no question of transfer of interest, by applying rule of inheritance or otherwise, as has been claimed on the part of the legal heirs of the beneficiaries, since there is no vested right or interest to be transferred validly to the legal heirs of the beneficiaries. When the beneficiaries themselves are not the 'assignees', within the strict meaning of the Act and the Rule, the legal representatives of the beneficiaries would get no vested right to claim any benefit out of such an order of assignment made by the Government, the cancellation power of which always lies with the Government for material irregularities and such other irregularities or illegalities committed at the time of assignment by the authorities concerned and other such reasons. Mere squatting over the property for years together, without any right or title or legalised assignment, does not make the beneficiaries or their successors 'assignees' within the strict meaning of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the beneficiaries or their legal representatives could have no case on this ground of non-compliance of Rule 11(6). Accordingly, this argument advanced on the part of the writ petitioners is also rejected. 19. From the materials placed on record it is seen that from the family of one Ranganna Gounder, his three sons viz. Therefore, the beneficiaries or their legal representatives could have no case on this ground of non-compliance of Rule 11(6). Accordingly, this argument advanced on the part of the writ petitioners is also rejected. 19. From the materials placed on record it is seen that from the family of one Ranganna Gounder, his three sons viz. (i) Kandasamy (the second petitioner in W.P.No.25844 of 2001); (ii) Karuppannan (husband of the third petitoiner in W.P.No.25844 of 2001) and (iii) K.R.Ramasamy were assigned the lands. The strong assertion of the contesting respondent is that none of the beneficiaries is entitled to preference and they got assignment based on imaginary grounds of cultivating tenants and even though he has filed records to substantiate his claim as a cultivating tenant, they were not considered by the authorities, instead three family members from one family were given the benefit, leading to miscarriage of justice. We are not deciding in this proceeding the entitlement or otherwise of the said members, since the matter has to be analysed by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) in the manner known to law. 20. We do not feel that any prejudice has been caused to the beneficiaries or their successors, since the process of assignment is not complete and the Special Appellate Tribunal has directed the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode to receive the applications for assignment from the revision petitioners therein or any other person for assignment and the petitioners therein are at liberty to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the Authorised Officer for assignment of surplus lands and put forth their claims and objections before the assigning authority and after considering the claims of the petitioners and their objections and others, the Authorised Officer was directed to pass a fresh order of assignment under Rule 8 of the said Rules in accordance with law. Therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever would be caused to the writ petitioners by participating in such fresh proceedings to be initiated by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode strictly in accordance with law. 21. For all the above reasons and discussions, both these writ petitions are dismissed, confirming the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal, dated 6.12.2001. Therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever would be caused to the writ petitioners by participating in such fresh proceedings to be initiated by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode strictly in accordance with law. 21. For all the above reasons and discussions, both these writ petitions are dismissed, confirming the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal, dated 6.12.2001. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Erode is directed to pass fresh order of assignment under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, WPMP.Nos.38226 of 2001 and 543 of 2002 are also dismissed. No costs.