Anjammal (deceased) and another vs State of Tamil Nadu and 25 others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—The Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmus by calling

for the records of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras representing State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein

relating to his order in proceedings C.L.A.D.Dis.K.1 R.P.23/81 dated 18.7.1986 confirming the orders of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur

passed in his proceedings SRI/80 Madras Central Act 30/63 dated 28.2.1981, upholding the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer,

Villupuram in his proceedings SR 1/78 Act 30/63 dated 2^V7 1980 granting ground rent patta in respect of T.S. No. 16 Block No.38 of Puliyur

Village, Kodambakkam, Madras u/s 13 (1) of the Act 30/63 in favour of the respondents 5 to 9 and to quash the said order and further to direct

the Commissioner of Land Administration, the first respondent herein to dispose of the proceedings regarding the issuance of ground rent patta by

giving due opportunity to the petitioners to make their submissions, on merits. This case involves a chequered history, which is given hereunder:-

(a) Puliyur is a estate village taken over by the Government under Act XXVI/48. The lands in T.S. No. 21/2 of Block No.39 and T.S. No. 16 of

Block No.38 of Puliyur village were recognised as minor inams. These lands have been notified under the Tamilnadu Minor Inams (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30/63, as the Inam and these lands stood transferred to Government and vested in them under the said Act.

(b) The Settlement Thasildar No, III Branch Settlement office, Chengalpattu took up sua motu enquiry and passed orders dated 19.5.1971

granting ground rent patta for T.S. No. 21/2 of Block No.39 in favour of Salesion Sisters'' Society of India, Madras and T.S. No. 16 of Block

No.38 to K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family.

(c) One K.P. Ganapathy Iyer, the power Agent of V. Appaswamy Pathar objecting to the grant of patta, filed an appeal against the said order

before the Tribunal at Madras in I.A.T. No. 1 of 1977.

(d) After hearing the names, the Tribunal by the order dated 13.12.1977 remanded the matter to Settlement Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and

disposal. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement office, Villupuram conducted enquiry.

(e) During the enquiry, one Venkatachala Pathar as a power of Attorney of Anjammal, wife of Kalyanasundara Pathar filed objection stating that

she was alone entitled for patta for the land in T.S. No. 16, as she is the lawful heir of the said Kalyanasundara Pathar. Ganapathi Iyer, the power

Agent of Appaswamy Pather objected to the said claim stating that the said Anjammal was not the legal heir.

(f) The respondent in the said petition, K.M. Ahmadullah Badsha also filed a written statement claiming that his father Akbar Badsha purchased the

said land T.S. No. 16 of Block No.38 about 4114 grounds and other adjoining properties under eight sale deeds between the years 1938 and

1945 and from then onwards, they were in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the entire lands.

(g) After the death of Akbar Badsha, notices u/s 9(2) of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 for the lands including T.S. No. 16 of

Block No.38 of Puliyur village were issued to the heirs of Akbar Badsha.

(h) In the meantime, the Government of Tamilnadu acquired the lands in T.S. No. 21. Since there were rival claimants to the heirs of Akbar

Badsha, the Land Acquisition Proceedings were referred to Civil Court.

(i) On conclusion of enquiry, the Court awarded compensation to the heirs of Akbar Badsha. The rival claimants in the Land Acquisition

proceedings claiming ownership of the various portions of the lands including T.S. No. 16 of Block No.38 were prosecuted by the State on

various charges for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code for having used forged documents for claiming the property in question and

ultimately, they were sentenced to imprisonment in S.C. No. 39 of 1972. On appeal, the High Court confirming the convictions dismissed the

same.

(j) After enquiry, giving opportunity to the parties concerned, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram by the order dated 23.7.1980,

concluded that the claimants including the petitioners have failed to prove and substantiate their claim for patta T.S. No. 16 of Block No.38 and

further held that the respondents, K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family members have let in convincing evidence to show that they would be

entitled to the patta and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the land continuously. Ultimately, he passed an order directing issuance of

ground rent patta for T.S. No. 16 of Block No.38 in favour of K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and the members of his family.

(k) Aggrieved by the above order, one Venkatachala Pathar, the power Agent, on behalf of Anjammal, filed a revision before the Settlement

Officer SR II, Thanjavur. After finishing the enquiry, by hearing the parties concerned, the settlement officer by the order dated 28.2.1981 held

that the revision petitioners had not established their case for grant of patta for the suit land, while the respondents have made out their case by

producing cogent and valid evidence and consequently, dismissed the revision having not found any ground to interfere with the orders passed by

the Assistant Settlement Officer.

(l) As against this order, Venkatachala Pathar, the power Agent of Anjammal filed second revision in R.P. No. 23 of 1981 before the special

commissioner for Land Administration, who in turn, dismissed the same by the order dated 18.7.1986.

(m) Strangely, Anjammal and her daughter Jothilakshmi have filed this writ petition challenging the above orders straightaway making their power

Agent as fourth respondent herein.

(n) During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner Anjammal died and on the memo, the second petitioner Jothilakshmi, the daughter

of the first petitioner Anjammal, is representing the proceeding"".

Mr. Sundararajan, the Learned Counsel representing Mr. M.R. Venkataraman, appearing for the petitioners would at length argue that the

impugned orders have got to be quashed on the simple ground that all the authorities concerned passed these orders without jurisdiction. The gist

of his contentions is as follows:-

(i) The Assistant Settlement Officer issued patta on 23.7.1980 in favour of K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family members, namely,

respondents 5 to 8 by the order dated 23.7.1980. The said order would suffer from infirmity for violation of Statutory Rules framed under the

Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1965 and as such, the same was passed without jurisdiction.

(ii) Furthermore, the procedure contemplated as provided in the Form No.4 had not been followed while me said finding had been given in favour

of the respondents 5 to 8 and the same was ordered in violation of time limit of 6 months period from the date of Notification as per Rule No.9

and Rule No.27.

(iii) The Assistant Settlement Officer having rejected the photostat copies of the documents filed by the petitioners, wrongly accepted the contents

of the photostat copies of the documents marked as Exs. R1 to R12 filed by die respondents 5 to 8 and the same was relied upon in support of his

finding. This is clearly prohibited under law.

(iv) As against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appeal is provided u/s 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963) to the Tribunal. Even against that order, the further appeal is provided u/s 30 of the Act to the

Special Appellate Tribunal. On the other hand, against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the jurisdictions of the Settlement Officer and

the Commissioner for Land Reforms were wrongly invoked through revisions. Therefore, the orders of both the Settlement Officer and the

Commissioner Land Administration are liable to be quashed, as they were passed without jurisdiction.

This submission of the counsel for the petitioners is supported by Mr. Harikrishnan, the counsel for the respondents 3 and 10 to 15 and also by

Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, the counsel for the respondents 16 to 25, who filed W.M.P. No. 19678 of 1997 requesting to implead them as parties

in the main writ petition on the ground that they purchased the lands in question by virtue of three sale deeds.

However, the above submission has been hotly contested by Mr. K.M. Amjad Nainar, the counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 and

Mr. N.S. Varadachari, the counsel appearing for the nineth respondent, the purchaser of the property from the respondents 5 to 8.

The contents of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents 5 to 9 are as follows:-

(a) Originally, the Settlement Tahsildar took up suo motu proceedings pursuant to the revenue records and passed orders on 19.5.1991 granting

ground rent patta for T.S. No. 16 of Block No.38 in favour of the respondents 5 to 8. The petitioners were nowhere in the picture then, since they

were not recognised owners of the land.

(b) As against the said order, one K.P. Ganapathi Iyer claiming to be the power of Attorney agent of one Appaswamy Pathar, the brother of

Kalyanasundar Pathar (husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner) alone filed Inam Appeal No.1 of 1977 before the

Tribunal. Even before the Tribunal, the petitioners were not parties.

(c) The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by order dated 13.12.1977 remanded the matter to the settlement officer for fresh enquiry. Only during

the said enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer after remand, the petitioners made a claim through their power of Attorney one Venkatachala

Pathar.

(d) In the said enquiry, some documents were produced by the petitioners. Those documents were rejected holding that they are not genuine. But

the Assistant Settlement Officer directed the grant of patta in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 in respect of T.S.No16 of Block No.38.

(e) Against this order, the petitioners only filed appeal before the Settlement Officer in R.P. No. 30 of 1963. After dismissal of the said appeal, the

petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who, ultimately, rejected the same on 18.7.1986. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities having no jurisdiction, as the petitioners only filed the appeal and

revision and invited the orders.

(f) Moreover, there are several suits are pending before the City Civil Court in O.S. Nos. 1396 of 1981, 7345 of 1986 and 9105 of 1990

involving the issue relating to the title to the properties in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below in favour of the

respondents 5 to 8 cannot be questioned by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the petitioners have got opportunity to

raise the issue before the Civil Court and to establish their claim. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed"".

Before dealing with the point for determination as regards the validity of the impugned orders, it would be appropriate to refer to the scope of

the jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the issue is pending before the Civil Court.

It is settled law that the Standing orders of the Board of Revenue cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the

question of title relating to immovable property. The Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but

such expression of opinion is not conclusive. Their views, on the available materials, are only intended to support their decision for granting patta.

Ultimately, it is the Civil Court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if

the Revenue Authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which has to decide'' the

question without reference to the decision of the Revenue Authorities.

On a perusal of the various authorities produced by the counsel for the parties, it is clear that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because the material evidence may be required for adjudicating

the question of title.

In the instant case, regarding the question of title to the properties in question, already Civil Court has seized of the matter. Under those

circumstances, the Civil Court may consider the question of title even without reference to the finding recorded by the first respondent, who

confirmed the order of the other Revenue Authorities. It shall on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them before

it decide about the question of title.

As correctly pointed out by the Learned Counsel appearing for the nineth respondent, the Full Bench of this Court in Srinivasan and six others

Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami and five others, would hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for declaration of title and

injunction is not barred by reason of the grant of patta under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30/63.

The said decision quoted the observation of the Apex Court, which is as follows:-

The plea of exclusion of the Civil Court''s jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of the parties in the present case is based on the provisions of the

Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (1963).this Court, Court count in a recent decision in R. Manicka Naicker

Ors. Vs. E. Elumalai Naicker, has clearly held that the Civil Court''s jurisdiction to adjudicate title of the parties, is not barred by virtue of the

provisions of the said Act.

These decisions would clearly show that the findings given by the Revenue Authorities in the matter of granting of patta would not preclude the

parties to adduce the evidence in the Civil Court claiming title to the properties and they are entitled to the pattas, as the findings of the Revenue

Authorities would not bind the Civil Court, which takes decision irrespective of the findings of the Revenue Authorities on the basis of the materials

placed before the Civil Court.

It is vehemently argued that all the authorities have passed impugned orders without jurisdiction and without following the procedure.

This submission, in my view, does not deserve acceptance for the reason that the petitioners participated in the enquiry before the Assistant

Settlement Officer, who initiated the enquiry as per the order of remand by the Tribunal. They did not object to the procedure followed by the

Assistant Settlement Officer then.

Similarly, the Settlement Officer was approached only by the petitioners through their power Agent Venkatachala Padiar. After dismissal, they

only filed a second revision before the first respondent and invited the detailed orders from him.

Once the petitioners acquiesced in the jurisdiction and argued the matter, they cannot be permitted to raise the point of jurisdiction at this stage

merely because they failed in their attempts in getting the favourable orders before the authorities concerned.

On this point, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners would take pains by preparing several typed sets containing the extracts of relevant

provisions and various decisions. I do not propose to deal with those decisions and provisions on the reason that these issues can be agitated

before the Civil Court where, as already indicated, the following suits are pending:-

(1) O.S. No. 7345 of 1986 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai filed by legal representatives of Manicka Achary against

Anjammal for permanent injunction.

(2) O.S. No. 1396 of 1981 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by Anjammal by Venkatachala Pathar against Appaswamy

Pathar for permanent injunction.

(3) O.S. No. 9105 of 1990 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by legal representatives of Manicka Achary against

Venkatachala Pathar for permanent injunction with reference to property T.S. No. 16 Block 38 Puliyur Village, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

When a similar issue has been raised before this Court earlier, the First Bench of this Court, by its judgment, rendered in Kuppuswami Nainar

Vs. The District Revenue Officer and Others, dismissed the writ petition and directed the parties to approach Civil Court for deciding the issues in

a suit even without reference to the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities.

In the light of the scope under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is so limited, in my view, this decision would squarely be applicable to this

case also.

In this context, the observation of the Hon''ble Srinivasan� (as he then was ) made in T.K. Ramanujam Kavirayar v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa

Pandora Sannadhi Avergal 1987 T.L.N.J.91=1988-2-L.W.513 is quite relevant, which is as follows:-

If a Civil Court holds that the person to whom patta is granted under the Act is not entitled to the land, the Revenue Authorities have to take note

of the same and amend the registers accordingly. It is only the person who succeeds before the Civil Court who will be entitled to get patta from

the Government. The various provisions in the Act which are consequential to the grant of patta under the Act, will also apply to such cases.

In my view, the ratio of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, will apply to cases arising under the Minor

Inams Act. I hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title is not ousted by the provisions of the Minor Inams Act.

It shall also be noticed that in the instant case, the petitioners originally appointed some other power Agent. Since he has not acted truthfully,

Venkatachala Pathar was appointed as a power of Attorney, who participated in the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Then the

appeal was filed before the settlement officer and revision before the commissioner, land administration only through the said Venkatachala Pathar,

the power of Attorney. But the writ petition has been filed directly by the petitioners making the said power of Attorney as fourth respondent

stating that the said Venkatachala Pathar, the fourth respondent herein, has acted against their interest by having wrong forums of jurisdiction.

This line of argument making all sorts of allegations as against the power Agents in order to make out a case that they have been wrongly

advised, does not merit acceptance.

A perusal of the records clearly show that the petitioners have never participated either before the officer who conducted suo motu enquiry or

filed any appeal against his order. Only during the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Remand by the Tribunal, they claimed their title

to the properties in question and requested patta on the basis of some photostat copies of documents.

Admittedly, those documents were held to be forged, by the sessions court in S.C. No. 39 of 1972 and also through the finding given by the

Hon''ble Pratap Singh, J. in C.S. No. 144of 1981 dated 12.10.1993.

Under those circumstances, I am not able to see any reason to take a view that the opinion expressed by the Revenue Authorities in the

impugned orders is wrong. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

As indicated earlier, the parties in the writ petition can agitate their respective rights in the civil suits pending before the Civil Courts. No costs.

Consequently W.M.P.No 9755 of 1988 is also dismissed.