Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1778 (MAD)

G. Thambidurai v. Tahsildar, Thanjore

2015-04-01

C.S.KARNAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.299 of 2005, on the file of District Munsif Court, Thanjore and the plaint averments stated that the suit property in Survey field No.199/2 with an extent of 4.59 acres of Pillayarpatty Village originally belongs to one Kailasam Sanaiyar, the grand father of the plaintiff viz., Thambidurai. The property was ancestral property. After the lifetime of Kailasam, his only son viz., Gopalsamy, father of the plaintiff enjoyed the property during his life time. While so, in the inter 1935 due to non payment of land tax arrears, the Tahsildar of Tanjore through his order dated 31.12.1935, the land was bought in by the Government. Subsequently, the land was converted as Punjai Tharisu. The said land had also been sub divided as 199/2A and 199/2B. The Government assigned the said land to one Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar in the year 1958 and the same was objected by the plaintiff thereby the said assignment was cancelled on 18.06.1971 by the 1st defendant /Tahsildar, Tanjore. Against the said cancellation order, both assignees had preferred an appeal before the 3rd defendant namely the District Revenue Officer, Tanjore. Against the said dismissal order the assignees preferred another appeal before the Board of Revenue and the matter was remanded to the 3rd defendant namely the District Revenue Officer, Tanjore. 2. The plaintiff further stated that again the 3rd defendant cancelled the assignment that stands in the name of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar dated 02.02.1980. Aggrieved by the said order, the assignees preferred an appeal before the land Reform Commissioner and the same was also dismissed dated 01.04.1991. From the year 1958 to 1991 due to irregular orders passed by the concerned Government officials the property was under dispute for the past 33 years. Further, the plaintiff stated that he had approached the Government and expressed his willingness to pay the land arrears and requested to reassign the land in favour of him since he is the sole legal heir of his grandfather viz., Kailasam Sanaiyar but his request application was rejected on 01.04.1991. The Government also contended that the lands are unfit for cultivation and allotted the same to lease out to Cherry Culture Department and to the Petroleum Bunk. The Government also contended that the lands are unfit for cultivation and allotted the same to lease out to Cherry Culture Department and to the Petroleum Bunk. The plaintiff further added that he is solely entitled to get back the lands by way of reassignment being the sole legal heir of the original owner of the land. The same was not considered by the defendants, hence the suit has been filed for reassignment by way of mandatory injunction and also prayed for the possession of the land. 3. The 1st defendant has filed a written statement and the same has been adopted by the other five defendants. The defendants summited that the suit scheduled mentioned property comprised in Survey No.199/2 to an extent of 4.59 acres situated at Pillaiyar Patti Village. Originally, the land was belonging to Kailasam Sanaiyar and the patta also was standing in his name. Thereafter, the property had been transferred to the Government. Further, the plaintiff had never raised any claim for the said land against the arrears of land tax. Further, the plaintiff had not claimed the suit scheduled mentioned property within a period of two years from the date of seizure as per Revenue Department standing rule 45(4) as such the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim the said land after a larger delay. The defendants additionally added that the plaintiff's review appeal before the Special Commissioner and the lands reforms commission had dismissed the said appeal on 01.04.1991 on the ground that the plaintiff is not in physical possession. Further, the 1st defendant had leased out two portions of the lands to and in favour of 4th and 5th defendants herein. 4. The defendants further submit that the plaintiff had submitted a claim application before the 2nd defendant herein/Revenue Divisional Officer, and requested him to reassign the suit scheduled mentioned property but the same was rejected by the 2nd defendant and it has been confirmed by the 3rd defendant/District Revenue Officer. Further after purchasing the property by the Government. Subsequently, it has been converted to Punjai Tharisu land. Thereafter, no compulsion to reassign the said lands to and in favour of the legal heirs of the original owner. Further after purchasing the property by the Government. Subsequently, it has been converted to Punjai Tharisu land. Thereafter, no compulsion to reassign the said lands to and in favour of the legal heirs of the original owner. Further, the Government after taking the land notice had been issued to the original owner after granting sufficient time for remitting the land tax, that opportunity had not been utilized by the plaintiff, now claiming the said land is not appropriate. The suit scheduled property has been under the care and custody of the Government. Therefore, the lands had been leased out to the Cherry Culture Department which is owned by the State Government and Hindustan Petroleum, which is owned by the Central Government. The lease was arranged as per the Government Rules. 5. The defendants further submitted that the suit scheduled mentioned property after its seizure by the Government notice had been issued to the owner of the land for the demand of arrears of land tax, the same was not paid, hence, the land is declared as taken over by the Government. Thereafter, due notice sent to the land owner within a stipulated period for demanding the arrears of land tax, this opportunity had not been utilized by the land owner, therefore the land had been converted and classified as punjai Tharisu. The defendants after observing all legal formalities where conforming to law, as such the defendants have not violated any law for leasing the properties to and in favour of the fourth and fifth defendants. Further, the order passed by the third defendant is sustainable under law. Therefore, the defendants pray to dismiss the fact since it is clearly considered as a misconception. 6. After considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed the below mentioned issues: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable as a result of limitation? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief as mandatory? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to secure the physical possession of the suit scheduled mentioned property? (iv) What other reliefs are both parties entitle to? On the side of the plaintiff who was examined as PW1 and had marked 15 exhibits as A1 to A15 viz. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief as mandatory? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to secure the physical possession of the suit scheduled mentioned property? (iv) What other reliefs are both parties entitle to? On the side of the plaintiff who was examined as PW1 and had marked 15 exhibits as A1 to A15 viz. A letter from Taluk Tahsildar, Thanjavur, dated 31.08.1982; a copy of the order passed by the Special Commissioner and the Land Reforms, Chennai, dated 1.4.1991; a letter from the Land Reforms Department dated 4.11.1999; a letter from the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, dated 26.05.2002; a letter from one Sivalingam to the Principal Commissioner, Land Administration, dated 5.4.1991; a copy of the proceedings from the Special Commissioner, Land Administration to the plaintiff; an application sent by the plaintiff to the District Revenue Officer, dated 13.10.2002, similarly 3 letters sent by the plaintiff to the District Revenue Officer and Land Commissioner; Ration card in the name of the plaintiff; a copy of the application addressed to the Revenue Minister of the State; and a communication received by one Sivalingam from the Joint Secretary to Government. 7. On the side of the defendants one Muthukumar was examined as DW1 who had marked 3 exhibits as D1 to D3 namely 'A' Register; Village Account Register issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Pillaiarpatti; and Government G.O.Ms.No.994 dated 23.10.1993 for the order for leasing out a portion of the scheduled mentioned property, to and in favour of Hindustan Petroleum. 8. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that he is the plaintiff in the suit and the scheduled mentioned property comprised in Survey No.199/2 to an extent of 4.59 acres situated at Pillaiarpatti Village, in Thanjavur District was originally belonging to his grandfather Kailasam Sanaiyar, after his lifetime the sole legal heir namely Gopalsamy had succeeded the property and in enjoyment of the same for an entire lifetime as being the only son of the grandfather of the plaintiff. He further stated that the Thanjavur Tahsildar had taken the property on 31.12.1935 due to non payment of land tax for the Fasli year 1343, as per order No.18431/35/A3 dated 31.12.1935. Thereafter, the land had been changed as bought-in-land. Subsequently, the second defendant had issued an order dated 1.3.1945 for changing the character of the land as Punjai Tharisu. He further stated that the Thanjavur Tahsildar had taken the property on 31.12.1935 due to non payment of land tax for the Fasli year 1343, as per order No.18431/35/A3 dated 31.12.1935. Thereafter, the land had been changed as bought-in-land. Subsequently, the second defendant had issued an order dated 1.3.1945 for changing the character of the land as Punjai Tharisu. Thereafter, the land had been sub-divided as Survey No.199/2A to an extent of 2.23 acres and Survey No.199/2B to an extent of 2.36 acres by the Special Tahsildar (Loan). 9. PW1 further stated that the said land had been assigned to third parties namely Muthusami Sanaiyar and Karuppa Sanaiyar in the year 1958. Aggrieved by the state assignment order, he had filed a petition to the first defendant who cancelled the said assignment order on 18.06.1971. Against the said cancellation order the said Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, who dismissed the said appeal on 07.10.1976 and confirmed the order passed by the first defendant. PW1 further adduced evidence stating that the said Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar made a review application before the Board of Revenue and challenged the assignment order. In turn the Board of Revenue cancelled the assignment order and remitted the matter to the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur. The District Revenue Officer again cancelled the assignment order including patta and passed the order on 02.02.1980. Against the cancellation of the assignment order, the assignee namely Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar made an appeal before the Commissioner, Land Reforms, who dismissed the said revision. As such, the dispute had started in the year 1958 and have come to the conclusion in the year 1991, as such for about 33 years the matter remained pending. 10. PW1 further stated that he had made several representations to the first defendant and expressed his willingness to remit the arrears of land tax and requested him to issue a patta in his name. Under the circumstances, he made a review application before the Commissioner, Land Administration, the same was dismissed by him for the reason that he was not in possession of the land continuously. In the said order, it reveals that with the exception of 70 cents the rest of the lands sold to 15 members. Under the circumstances, he made a review application before the Commissioner, Land Administration, the same was dismissed by him for the reason that he was not in possession of the land continuously. In the said order, it reveals that with the exception of 70 cents the rest of the lands sold to 15 members. However, the subject land, is still vacant under his custody and occupation after following up in a hut and taken habitation therein, to that effect he obtained family ration card at the said address. 11. PW2 additionally stated in his swearing statement that as per the Revenue Standing Order No.45, if kist amount is not paid then the land has to be assigned to the legal heir of the land owner and no others. Further, the first defendant had leased out a portion of the land to and in favour of the Cherry Culture Department and the Hindustan Petroleum Division. Further, PW1 stated before assigning the land to the third parties, the first and second defendants should give notification to the legal heirs of the land owner. Before attaching the said property notification was not issued in the gazette. After attachment the property should be kept under the Revenue Administration for attaching the property, the defendants have not followed the necessary legal formalities besides this action notices have not been affixed appropriately at essential places. Further, his brother has permitted him to obtain assignments from the defendants. He has levelled several applications to the Revenue Minister for State. Hence, PW1 prays to restore the subject matter of the land. 12. DW1 had adduced evidence stating that initially the land was belonging to one Kailasam Sanaiyar, to an extent of 4.59 acres situated at Pillaiarpatti Village. The plaintiff had never approached the defendant for remitting the kist within a period of two years as per the Revenue Standing Order. The plaintiff had filed a review application before the Special Commissioner, Land Reforms, the same was dismissed on 01.04.1991. The first defendant had leased out a portion of the land to the fourth and fifth defendants. Further, there is no compulsion to reassign the land to the legal heirs of the original owner. DW1 further stated that before buying the said land statutory notice was served on the original owner and disclosed the entire facts regarding non payment of Kist. Further, there is no compulsion to reassign the land to the legal heirs of the original owner. DW1 further stated that before buying the said land statutory notice was served on the original owner and disclosed the entire facts regarding non payment of Kist. Without resorting to any violation the land had been bought out by the Government for non-payment of land tax. 13. Considering the averments of both parties and on recording the evidence of both sides and also on perusing the exhibits marked by them and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the trial Court passed the decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to collect the land tax arrears after calculation and reassign the scheduled mentioned property to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the defendants 1 to 4 have filed an appeal suit No.125 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The trial Courtafter hearing the averments of the respective parties and after framing four issues and on perusing the decree and judgment of the trial Court allowed the appeal suit, consequently set aside the trial Court's decree and judgment and assigned the reason stating that the legal heir of the original owner had not approached the assigning authorities in time by expressing their willingness to pay the land arrears. 14. Against the decree and judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal and challenged the trial Court decree and judgment. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.S.Sundar has explained Revenue Standing Order 45-4 which is as follows: "4. Disposal of bought-in-lands-(1) in the matter of assignment of bought-in-lands, the original owners or their undisputed heirs should be preferred to outsiders, provided that the assigning authority is satisfied that the original owner was not a wilful defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances beyond the defaulter's control and that such assignment is otherwise unobjectionable. If there be more than one heir of the original owner, the assigning authority shall have the power to decide to whom among them the land should be assigned. If there be more than one heir of the original owner, the assigning authority shall have the power to decide to whom among them the land should be assigned. The re-assignment will be free of market value; but, the re-assignment should be ordered only on those assignee paying the arrears of land revenue for which the land was bought-in, together with the interest thereon. Back assessment should also be collected from the year in which the land was bought-in, to the year of re-assignment, or for a period of twelve years, whichever is less. In cases where the land has been under the occupation of any person or persons other than the original owner or his successor in title, for any period during the 12 years immediately preceding the year of re-assignment, the period of such occupation should be excluded and back assessment should be collected only for the remaining period. If before the land was brought-in, any takkavi loan had been granted to the original owner on the security of the land and if such loan amount has not been repaid in full, the loan amount or the balance due, together with interest should also be recovered from the original owner or his undisputed heir before the land is re-assigned to him, even though the loan arrears have been written off the account as irrecoverable. (2) With a view to giving effect to the above instructions, the following procedure is laid down:- Immediately after a land is brought-in and its purchase money is written off the accounts under paragraph 1 above, if there is no objection to the assignment of the land the Tahsildar should issue a notice in writing to the defaulter informing him that the land would be re-assigned to him if he pays the arrears, back assignment, balance of loan, if any, etc. and it applies to the Tahsildar for re-assignment of the land, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such notice. The arrears and the back assessment due from the defaulter and whenever possible, the interest due on the arrears should be specified in the notice. In the case of lands bought-in before Fasli 1366 time may be given till 30th June 1958 or such other date as the Board of Revenue may by general instructions specify. The arrears and the back assessment due from the defaulter and whenever possible, the interest due on the arrears should be specified in the notice. In the case of lands bought-in before Fasli 1366 time may be given till 30th June 1958 or such other date as the Board of Revenue may by general instructions specify. In such cases, if the original owner is not alive, the notice mentioned above should be issued to his undisputed heirs. On receipt of an application for re-assignment of the land, the Tahsildar will verify whether all the arrears and back assignment, etc., due, together with interest on the arrears, have been remitted by the applicant and whether the applicant, if he is not the original owner, is the undisputed heir of the original owner. The Tahsildar will then submit the application together with his recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Divisional Officer will pass orders on the application himself- (a) in cases where the land is wet or other valuable land coming under sub-paragraph (1) (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 22 of S.O. 15 and where the extent involved does not exceed 2½ acres, and (b) in the case of other kinds of lands where the extent involved does not exceed 5 acres. In all other cases, the Revenue Divisional Officer will forward the application with his recommendation to the Collector for his orders.” Having regard to the above provisions of the Revenue Standing Order, the learned Principal Sub-Judge ought to hav e seen that in the matter of assignment of bought in lands, the original owners or their undisputed heirs should be preferred to outsiders and that the Tahsildar should issue a notice in writing to the original owner (Defaulter) informing him that the land would be re-assigned to him if he pays the arrears. It is only thereafter the legal heirs of original owner is required to submit an application for assignment within a period of one year from the date of notice. The learned Principal Sub-Judge further failed to see that in case of lands brought in before Fasli 1366(1956) time should be given till 30.06.1958. It is only thereafter the legal heirs of original owner is required to submit an application for assignment within a period of one year from the date of notice. The learned Principal Sub-Judge further failed to see that in case of lands brought in before Fasli 1366(1956) time should be given till 30.06.1958. In the present case, it was the specific case of plaintiff that no notice was given to him or other heirs of his father anytime after the land was brought in, it was also not the case of defendants that such notice was given. In such circumstances the learned Principal Sub-Judge ought to have held that the plaintiff is entitled to re-assignment of suit land as a matter of right upon payments arrears of land revenue as understood in terms of the revenue standing orders." 15. The very competent counsel further submits that the trial Court failed to consider that it is not the case of defendants that the lands cannot be assigned or assignable for any reason with reference to the Revenue Standing Order. In such circumstances the trial Court ought to have confirmed the trial Court judgment. 16. Further thetrial Court ought to have held that the time starts only from the date of receipt of a notice from the Tahsildar fixing the arrears of land revenue together with dues payable by the plaintiff as contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders and that the findings of the lower Appellate Court that the requirement of issuance of notice by the Taluk Tahsildar as contemplated under Revenue Standing Order would not support the case of the plaintiff is legally unsustainable. Further, it is admitted that the suit scheduled mentioned property originally belongs to Kailasam Sanaiyar, the grandfather of the plaintiff that the lands were taken as brought in lands for non payment of kist to the Government, that the Government has passed studying orders mandating the assignment of the lands to the owner or his undisputed heirs upon receipt of the arrears of land revenue with interest. The lower Appellate Court ought to have seen that the standing orders should be considered to give the benefit to the land owner in equity. Further, the return statement of the defendant regarding time limit for seeking assignment is contrary to the Revenue Standing Orders as the notice demanding arrears was never issued in the instant case. The lower Appellate Court ought to have seen that the standing orders should be considered to give the benefit to the land owner in equity. Further, the return statement of the defendant regarding time limit for seeking assignment is contrary to the Revenue Standing Orders as the notice demanding arrears was never issued in the instant case. Further regarding land tax arrears, the defendants had not produced relevant records. The D.W.1 had openly admitted that the appellant and his father repeatedly levelled many representations to reassign the land. D.W.1 further admits that the plaintiff had been issued 'D' Memo by the Tahsildar which clearly proves that the plaintiff is in physical possession except a small portion of the land which has been assigned to the Cherry Culture Department and Hindustan Petroleum Division. 17. The highly competent counsel further submits that the lease had been granted to and in favour of Hindustan Petroleum, now the lease period has expired as such the original lease agreement is not in existence. Now, the Cherry Culture Department is occupying to an extent of 30 cents which is subject to the claim of the plaintiff and outcome of this Court in the second appeal. The Cherry Culture Department i.e. the fourth defendant in the suit had not filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court and had not challenged the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. 18. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.S.Sundar further submits that the defendants had openly admitted that in the absense of prior notice to the predecessor of the plaintiff, the property had been seized for non payment of arrears of land tax. The plaintiff had challenged the assignment which had been granted in favour of third parties in the year 1958. Subsequently, also the plaintiff continuously challenged the assignment order and also continuously made a return request for reassigning the land in favour of the plaintiff. The impleading petitioners 1 to 8 are not necessary parties in the above said appeal. Further, there is no marketable title deed in favour of the third party who allegedly alienated the said property is not sustainable under law. As such the impleading petition is not maintainable. 19. The impleading petitioners 1 to 8 are not necessary parties in the above said appeal. Further, there is no marketable title deed in favour of the third party who allegedly alienated the said property is not sustainable under law. As such the impleading petition is not maintainable. 19. Mr.S.Sivatilakar, appearing for the impleading petitioner submits that they have purchased the property situated in Survey No.199/2B to an extent of 2.36 acres as per their respective sale deeds dated 16.09.1982 and 18.09.1982 which is the subject matter in the appeal. Further, the encumbrance certificate reveals that the appellant is the owner of a part of the suit scheduled mentioned property, as such the sale deed is valid under law and the impleading petitioners are having rights over the said properties. Therefore, the impleading petitioner are necessary parties, further the plaintiff and the defendants have no locus standi to resist the registered sale deeds. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impleading petitioner / third parties are in no way connected with the suit scheduled mentioned property. Actually the issue was whether the Government / defendant had taken over the property from the grandfather of the appellant herein for non-payment of land kist. This dispute had arisen from the year 1935 and as of now. Therefore, the sale deeds have obtained by the impleading petitioner herein is not valid and it is considered to be a sham and nominal. 21. The very competent Government Pleader submits that the grandfather of the plaintiff had owned to an extent of 4.59 acres comprised in survey No.199/2 at Pillaiarpatti Village in Thanjore District. The grandfather of the appellant namely Kailasam Sanaiyar had committed willful default for committing the mandatory land tax to the statutory authorities. Therefore the said scheduled mentioned property had been taken over by the respondents after due notice to the original owner and also after observing all legal formalities. The original owner had not claimed the said land against the payment of land tax arrears within a statutory period of two years. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was as an after thought and also inordinate delay. The first defendant had leased out two portions of the lands out of the total extent of the suit scheduled mentioned property. Now, the entire properties are under the care and custody and occupation of the respondents. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was as an after thought and also inordinate delay. The first defendant had leased out two portions of the lands out of the total extent of the suit scheduled mentioned property. Now, the entire properties are under the care and custody and occupation of the respondents. The plaintiff had sought similar remedy before the Taluk Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer, Tanjore. All the three Revenue Officials / quasi Judicial Officers have rejected the plea of the plaintiffs that is reassignment. 22. The very competent Government Pleader additionally added that the plaintiff had also twice approached the Special Commissioner, Land Reforms against the findings of the respondents 1 to 3. The Special Commissioner, Land Reforms had also rejected the claim of the appellants on merits. Now, the entire property has been occupied by the respondents including cherry culture and Bharat Petroleum Division, which is a lawful occupation of the respondents. Therefore, the above second appeal is not maintainable since the first Appellate Court has not committed any irregularity or illegality. The learned first Appellate Court had framed four relevant issues and the same have been decided on merits besides the appellate Court had assigned a logical view stating that the legal heirs of the original owner had not approached the respondents within a stipulated period for reassignment. As such, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is appropriate and also suitable for execution. Hence, the learned Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above second appeal. 23. PW1 further adduced evidence stating that the original owner Kailasam Sanaiyar had not remitted the land tax hence the suit scheduled mentioned properties had been taken by the Government in the year 1935 subsequently the said property had been converted and classified as Punja tharisu. Thereafter, the said property had been subdivided and let out to the cherry culture and the Hindustan Petroleum Division to an extent of 12 acres and 95½ acres respectively. DW1 further adduced evidence that the plaintiff had not filed any claim petition for reassignment within a period of two years before the defendants. Therefore, the defendant has no rights to claim the same besides the plaintiff had filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Special Commissioner, Land Reforms for the same relief but the same was rejected. 24. Therefore, the defendant has no rights to claim the same besides the plaintiff had filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Special Commissioner, Land Reforms for the same relief but the same was rejected. 24. In cross examination the D.W.1 stated that he did not know the quantum of arrears of land tax, however at present the land tax for the said property, a sum of Rs.4.85/- further the said property had been changed as Government lands, in the year 1935 itself. He also admits that on 01.03.1945 the said property had not been auctioned since no one offered for the sale he also admits that during the relevant period the British was ruling and in 15.08.1947 India secured Independence and on 26.01.1950 it was created a Republic. 25. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:- (1) The respondents / Government officials had assigned the subject lands to and in favour of Kailasam Sanaiyar and Muthuswamy sanaiyar in the year 1958. Subsequently, the assignment order was cancelled on 18.06.1971 by the first defendant / Tahsildar, Tanjore, on the ground that the assignees have not cultivated the said land as per the orders in the assignment condition. However, the Government officials / defendants contended that the subject lands are not suitable for cultivation and the same leased out to the Cherry Cultured Department and to the Petroleum Bunk. The Government officials / defendants claim goes contrary to reasoning. Initially being leased out for cultivation but kept in abeyance since the land is considered uncultivable, thereafter the land leased out for cherry culture and a petrol bunk. (2) Originally the land comprised in Survey field No.199/2 to an extent of 4.59 acres situated at Pillaiyarpatti Village belongs to one Kailasam Sanaiyar the grandfather of the plaintiff herein was taken by the Government due to non-payment of mandatory taxes to the statutory authorities. Subsequently the said land was converted as Punjai Tharisu. Before the conversion of the land as Punjai tharisu, the Government Officials should inform by way of prior notice to the original owner of the land. As such the land conversion order runs against the principal of natural justice. (3) The defendants/Government officials did not show any clarity regarding land tax, period of land tax, arrears of land tax and value of the subject land. As such the land conversion order runs against the principal of natural justice. (3) The defendants/Government officials did not show any clarity regarding land tax, period of land tax, arrears of land tax and value of the subject land. Further, the defendants had not shown the mode in taking over the land from the original land owner. The payment of due taxes can only be met by income accruing from the useabilityof the land. Hence, it would be absurd if the land is seized by the authorities, then how will the owner be in a position to pay his taxes. Hence, ceasing of the land for non payment of land tax is not appropriate in the instant case, since the Government can collect by way of suitable alternative method without harassing the original land owner by way of seizing cultivable land. (4) The Government / defendants had assigned the land to and in favour of 2/3rd parties namely Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthuswamy Sanaiyar, subsequently the assignment order had been cancelled due to violation of one of the conditions viz. Non cultivation of the land. Now, the plaintiff grandson of the original owner, Kailasam Sanaiyar has come forward to pay the arrears of land tax and seeking the restoration of the subject matter of the land for which he is entitled to, if the land is restored to the plaintiff, the defendants / Government will not be prejudiced or put into any irreparable loss. (5) The defendant had leased out two portions out of the total area to and in favour of cherry culture department and to the Petroleum Bunk respectively. The mode of the seizure of the land is not permitted by law, as such the seizure of the land is treated as illegal and dominating by nature. Therefore, the land rights is exclusively with the land owner. Hence, the defendants / concerned Government officials are liable to show the accounts regarding the lease amount so far collected from the lessees namely Cherry Culture Department and the Petroleum Bunk. The lease amount collected from the lessees is adjustable with the arrears of the original land tax i.e. upto the date of seizure since the land is vested with the Government for that period, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay any arrears of tax from the date of seizure till restoration of the land to the plaintiff. The lease amount collected from the lessees is adjustable with the arrears of the original land tax i.e. upto the date of seizure since the land is vested with the Government for that period, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay any arrears of tax from the date of seizure till restoration of the land to the plaintiff. (6) The defendants had stated that in their written statement that they had issued a notice and granted sufficient time for remitting the land tax arrears, the same was not utilized by the plaintiff. In order to prove this crucial point, the defendants had not marked any relevant documents before the trial Court, therefore, the contents of the defendant is unacceptable, as such the proceedings of the defendants for ceasing the lands is in violation of the principle of natural justice. (7) The defendants have stated that the suit scheduled mentioned properties had been taken over by the Government and after due notice to the owner of the land within the stipulated time and demanded land tax arrears, the same was not complied with, as such the defendants have declared that the lands had been purchased by the Government. In order to prove the same, there is no documentary proof produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the action followed by defendants / State machinery operated against the private individual / land owner is tantamount to absolute domination. (8) The DW1 had admitted in his cross examination that the land tax for the year 2006 being a sum of Rs.4.85/- but he does not make any mention of the land tax existing in the year 1935 and also not furnishing the value of the suit scheduled mentioned property, besides the DW1 had not given any clarity statement regarding the public auction of the suit property. As such the respondents had taken over the property without following legal procedure and secured the same in a dominated manner. Therefore, the appellant being a poor agriculturist is entitled to secure the suit scheduled mentioned property as in the present condition including leased land granted in favour of Cherry culture and Bharath Petroleum Division respectively. In this case assignment of land does not arise since the property is not belonging to the Government. Therefore, the appellant being a poor agriculturist is entitled to secure the suit scheduled mentioned property as in the present condition including leased land granted in favour of Cherry culture and Bharath Petroleum Division respectively. In this case assignment of land does not arise since the property is not belonging to the Government. Actually, the property was originally belonging to the grand father of the appellant, therefore, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 herein to restore the said suit scheduled mentioned property including leased land vested with the lessee within a period of two months without any conditions, failing which the appellants are at liberty to occupy the said land subject to available vacant land. (9) After taking over the suit scheduled mentioned property by the respondents, the lands remind vacant except a portion of this land occupied by the two lessees i.e. namely Cherry culture department and Bharat Petroleum Division. As such, the respondents / Government are enjoying the lease amount begetting to themselves a benefit. Although they did not make any investment over the land. As such, if the suit land is restored to the appellant, the respondents / Government will not be put into hardship or irreparable loss. On the contrary the Government secured the land in an unethical manner and keeping the same under their custody in a dominating manner which is certainly against the principle of natural justice. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the judgments of the Courts below, on perusing the typed set of papers, the views of this Court, as mentioned in 1 to 9, consisting of both logical and generalized views, the above appeal is allowed, consequently the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.125 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, is set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.299 of 2005 dated 27.04.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur is confirmed. The impleading petition in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in S.A.No.626 of 2011 is rejected. 27. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.299 of 2005 dated 27.04.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur is confirmed. The impleading petition in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in S.A.No.626 of 2011 is rejected. 27. This Court further directs the respondents to restore the said scheduled mentioned property including the leased land as in the prevailing condition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order unconditionally and mutate all the relevant records in the name of the appellant herein. If the respondents are not satisfied with this Court judgment, they are at liberty to file an appeal after first restoring the said lands to the appellant herein. Accordingly ordered.