Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1857 (MAD)

Vinayagam v. District Collector

2025-04-02

ANITA SUMANTH, C.KUMARAPPAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANITA SUMANTH, J. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. A Writ Petition had been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.10.2023 for issuance of a Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land with hutment bearing Municipal Door No.2, Mariamman Koil Street, Anumanthakuppam Village, Karunguzhi Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in S.No.56, No.142, Anumanthakuppam Village ('land'/'land in question'/'property in question') within a specified time. 2. The Writ Petition was taken up for hearing after completion of pleadings. The submission of the appellant was that he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in question for more than 20 years and hence entitled for Ryotwari Patta invoking G.O.Ms.No.1300 Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. He referred to various other Writ Petitions, wherein similarly situated persons had been granted relief by the Court. 3. The defence put up by the State was that the appellant had earlier made a request for issuance of Ryotwari Patta which had come to be rejected on 16.11.2023. There were other defences put up by the State to the effect that the appellant was not a cultivator and was only dwelling in the subject land. 4. In addition and more importantly, the State averred that the appellant was also disentitled in terms of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (in short 'Act'). According to them, the concession extended by the Government in terms of that Act came to an end on 30.06.1975 and hence there was no scope or avenue for the State to consider the claim of the appellant as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.589, CT & RE Department dated 14.05.1975. 5. The Court took note of the rival contentions. It also took note of the fact that the Tahsildar had, in fact, rejected the claim of the appellant vide order dated 16.11.2023 which order had remained unchallenged by the appellant. 6. 5. The Court took note of the rival contentions. It also took note of the fact that the Tahsildar had, in fact, rejected the claim of the appellant vide order dated 16.11.2023 which order had remained unchallenged by the appellant. 6. Thus, the Writ Petition had come to be closed, learned Judge noting that the appellant had not challenged the provisions of the Act disentitling the appellant to the relief sought, the land in question was classified as 'Meikkal Poromboke', there was nothing to establish that the appellant was in possession of the property, no adangal was produced to show that the land was under cultivation by the appellant and hence, there was no justification in the petitioner seeking such relief by way of a representation. Aggrieved, the Writ Petitioner is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard Mr.S.Subramaniya, learned counsel appearing for Mr.SP.Patel, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr.C.Gowtham Raj, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. Before us, the learned Government Advocate has reiterated the submissions made before the learned single Judge. In addition, the thrust of his submissions revolves around G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987, which is produced for the first time before this Court. 9. In order to afford an adequate opportunity to the appellant, a copy of G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987, Circular dated 12.06.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA) in connection with the assignment of patta for Ryotwari lands as well as four decisions that had been relied on by the State have also been supplied to the appellant and sufficient time granted to study the same. Those decisions are: i) Sundaram and others V. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration and others (W.A.No.96 of 2015 dated 09.02.2016) ii) Sundaram and others V. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration and others (SLP (C) No.13454 of 2016 dated 13.05.2016) iii) Durab Zaman Begam and others V. The Director, The King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research and others (W.A.Nos.271 and 272 of 2014 dated 06.12.2023) iv) T.Giriraj and another V. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration and others (W.A.No.1748 of 2015 dated 25.09.2023) 10. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 has been specifically passed only to bring finality in respect of the assignment of patta for Ryotwari lands. The G.O. considers the suggestions made by the CLA that there had to be a measure of finality brought into litigation relating to the issuance of patta in respect of Ryotwari lands. The suggestions made resulted in an amendment under G.O.Ms.No.1400, C.T.&R.E.Department, dated 21.11.1975 and a date fixed, beyond which claims for issuance of patta for Ryotwari lands would not be considered. 11. As a measure of equity, it was also suggested by the CLA that a limitation period also be granted, beyond which, the delay in making claims will also not be condoned. Upon consideration of the suggestions made, G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 has come to be passed. 12. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 and the annexures under which the amendments had been notified are set out hereunder: Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 – Admission of belated appeals and revisions – Amendment to the rules prescribed under Section 63,19,19A, 5(2), 7(d) and 67(2) (d) of Act – withdrawn – Notifications – Issued. Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department G.O.Ms.No.714                                                                       Dated 29.6.87 ........................ ORDER .................... 2. The Government have also afforded certain special concessions by way of grant of patta outside the scope of the Abolition Acts. Even after the completion of settlement proceedings and introduction of settlement. The Commissioner for Land Administration has now stated that even then the claims rejected during the settlement proceedings are reopened within the provisions of the Act by way of a revision petition with petition for condonation of delay. Considering the ample opportunities given to get the claim for lands established under the Government Order relating to assignment outside the scope of the Abolition Acts, there is no real need to provide for condonation of delay for consideration of claims. Under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 after such a long time lag. Considering the ample opportunities given to get the claim for lands established under the Government Order relating to assignment outside the scope of the Abolition Acts, there is no real need to provide for condonation of delay for consideration of claims. Under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 after such a long time lag. He has opined that there should be some finality to these settlement proceedings and that reopening of closed cases on one ground or other by the authorities by virtue of the lowers conferred on them would only unsettle the settled issues and land the state in continued litigation and expenditure in contesting such cases in Courts and that he has suggested that the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No.1400, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, dated 21.11.1975 may be suitably modified to that effect. 3. The Commissioner for Land Administration has also suggested that since a provision for condonation of delay has been made, it is desirable that while withdrawing that concession, provision may be made for such procedure, being availed for limited period, after the proposed amendment, since the condonation being discretionary, nobody can object on the ground that any right vested in him had been taken away, as could be the contention if the period for appeal is sought to be interfered with. He has further suggested that as a matter of equity, a limited period, after the amendment equal to the period, upto which the delay can be condoned in the normal course, may be allowed in the proposed amendments in respect of older cases. The Commissioner for Land Administration has also submitted necessary draft amendments in this regard. 4. The Government have examined the proposals of the Commissioner for Land Administration and decided to approve the draft amendments suggested by him with slight modification. 5. The notifications annexed to this order will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Annexure Notification – I In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 67 read with section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Rules published with the Revenue Department Notification dated the 7th January 1950, at pages 25-26 in the Rules Supplement to part I of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated the 17th January 1950, as subsequently amended: AMENDMENT In the said rules, in rule 6, for the proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:- "Provided that the Director or the Commissioner of Land Administration may condone delay upto a period of thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within the prescribed time: Provided further that in respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of such publication: Provided also that suo motu powers of the Commissioner of Land Administration under section 7 of the Act shall not be barred in any case". 13. We are given to understand that the said G.O. was notified around a month later, ie., on 20 th July, 1987. Hence, the last date by which claims for issuance of patta for Ryotwari lands would be entertained is 20 th August, 1987. 14. A perusal of the decisions relied upon by the State would also indicate that the identical position as obtaining before us has been considered by two Division Benches of this Court and held adverse to those Writ Petitioners, this Court taking note of the ceiling date fixed by the State in respect of the matters relating to assignment of patta for Ryotwari lands and holding the fixation of 20 th August, 1987, as the last date, to be as immutable. 15. The decision of this Court in Sundaram and others (supra) was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.13454 of 2016, which was dismissed on 13.05.2016. We extract below the relevant paragraphs, being paragraphs 16 and 29, in Sundaram and others (supra) as follows: 16. The appellants made the representation on 23 January 2013 to the first respondent, claiming to be the descendants of Solagiri Zamindar of Hosur Zamin Estate for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the land comprised in S.Nos. 155/2 over an extent of 67.65 acres and S.No. 156 over an extent of 21 acres in Padianallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. It was not the case of the appellants that they are in possession of the petition scheduled lands. 155/2 over an extent of 67.65 acres and S.No. 156 over an extent of 21 acres in Padianallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. It was not the case of the appellants that they are in possession of the petition scheduled lands. The first respondent, exercising his power under the provisions of the Act, came to hold that as per the Rules framed under the Act, the appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of completion of Final Settlement Enquiry. The first respondent further held that the rules were amended from time to time in order to facilitate the land holders, ryots and tenants to apply for grant of patta beyond the statutory appeal period and, finally, amendments were made and notified by G.O. Ms. No.714, whereunder, the powers to condone the delay was withdrawn. 29. The State Government, subsequently, by several Goverment Orders, as referred to in G.O. Ms. No. 1300, Revenue Department dated 30 April 1971, had permitted the landholders or the ryots, who could not obtain patta within the prescribed time under the provisions of the Act, to make an application for grant of patta in respect of such lands, provided they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of any land in the estate taken over under the Act. The said permission came to an end subsequently by G.O. Ms. No. /14, which stipulated the last date as 20 August 1987. The appellants had never come forward under the aforestated provisions of the Act or under the extended time granted by Several Government Orders, claiming to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of any land in the estate taken over under the Act. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant makes an attempt to re-argue the position, pointing to the language in which G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 has been couched. He submits that the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, has, by Circular issued on 12.06.2015, specifically reiterated that the authorities are to scrupulously abide by the dictat of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. Paragraph 8 of the Circular further requires the application filed should be transmitted to the higher authorities for their consideration. 17. He submits that the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, has, by Circular issued on 12.06.2015, specifically reiterated that the authorities are to scrupulously abide by the dictat of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. Paragraph 8 of the Circular further requires the application filed should be transmitted to the higher authorities for their consideration. 17. This submission is misconceived and the relevant portion of the Circular, as extracted below, does not lead to such an interpretation at all:- Since the last date to apply for patta outside the sope of Abolition Acts has expired long time ago, the Revenue Divisional Officers and District Revenue Officers are instructed to refrain themselves from entertaining such applications and send proposals to Commissioner of Land Administration. Otherwise, it would be viewed very seriously. 18.Thus, and on the contrary, a reading of the above reveals that the intention of the CLA is to specifically direct the authorities not to entertain such applications or forward the same to the CLA, as the date fixed under G.O.Ms.No.714, i.e., 29.06.1987, is to be adhered to strictly. 19. There is no merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.