AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This judgment shall dispose of the following two writ petitions, viz.,
Sl. No. Case No. Name of the Petitioner
1 W.P. No. 12613 of 2001 1. N. Adikesavan
Chinnayan
Jayaraman
Mangaliammal
Paneerselvam
Doss
Muthian
Muthulakshmi
Kannan
Parvathiammal
Ravi
Rukmani
Gowri
Mohan
Valmurthy
Dilipkumar
Neelakandan
Logammal
Sakunthala
Ravayammal
Santhanammal
Saraswathi
Omprakash
Sundararaj
Sivaraj
Kalaivani
Murugesh
Lingaganapathy
2 W.P. No. 24522 of 2001 1. Thirunavukkarasu
Killiammal
Madurai Muthu
Karunakaran
Mahalingam
Ramadoss
as the common question of law and facts are raised in these two writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P. No.
12613 of 2001.
The Petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the
prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2001, passed by the Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600005.
The facts pleaded in support of the petition by B. Balakrishnan, S/o. R.D. Baskar, the Power of Attorney Agent of the Petitioners, are that;
i) Koyambedu Village in Chingleput District was originally an Inam Estate. It was notified under the provisions of the Estates Abolition and
Conversion into Roytwari Act (Act 26 of 1948) vide G.O.Ms. No. 2302 Revenue Department dated 01.09.1951 and taken over on 01.10.1951.
ii) An adjacent village i.e. Thirumangalam was Zamin Estate, which was notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 3157 Revenue Department dated 09.12.1950
was taken over on 09.01.1951. Survey was effected and Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in Fazli 1369.
iii) One R. Chandrasekar, a Power of Attorney Agent of Sri Elumalai and others made a claim for patta. The basis of the claim is that the lands
covered by the proceedings before the Respondents originally belonged to one Tmt. Vedammal. In the year 1914, one Alavattan, S/o. Amavasai
and others purchased these lands from her and patta was issued in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased pattadars.
iv) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai examined the claim and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Tiruvannamalai for a detailed enquiry.
v) When the matter was pending before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, the Petitioners made an application alleging that the lands
originally belonged to Alavattan and Amavasai by virtue of the purchase in the year 1914 and 1915. After the death of Alavattan and Amavasai,
their legal heirs executed a Power in favour of Thiru R.D. Baskar, father of B. Balakrishnan and after his death, a Power of Attorney was executed
in favour of B. Balakrishnan. The Petitioners made a claim for patta in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Alavattan ana Amavasai.
vi) The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, vide order dated 31.07.1998, rejected the claim and held that patta already stood granted to
one Sri. Renganathan, Ex-Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village under Sections 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act, by the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Chittor vide order dated 31.07.1952.
vii) The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai dated 31.07.1998, filed Writ Petition No.
14267 of 1998 in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 22.09.1998, on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal, before the Settlement
Officer, Thanjavur. The appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the appellate authority on 10.11.1998, holding it to be time barred and
that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay.
viii) The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 10.11.1998, filed revision before the Commissioner and Director
of Survey and Settlement, who accepted the revision and allowed Roytwari patta, in favour of B. Balakrishnan, as Power of Attorney Agent,
though it should have been in favour of Petitioners.
ix) It is the case of the Petitioners that before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, specific contention was raised, that in
terms of G.O.Ms. No. 714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 23.06.1987, the Settlement Officer is empowered to condone the
delay of 30 days beyond the period of limitation prescribed.
x) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement held that under the rules, the Settlement Officer had the power to condone the delay.
The revisional authority also held, that Section 12 of the Act deals with grant of patta to Zamindars in respect of private and pannai lands, while
Section 13 of the Act deals with grant of patta to Inamdars for private and pannai lands.
xi) It was further held that the dispute was with respect to S. No. 229/1A and 230/7A and certain old paimash number connected with these.
xii) The case of the Petitioners is that it was after considering the entire documents that revisional authority held that the order of the appellate
authority was not sustainable and ordered grant of patta for 1.76 acres of lands in S. No. 229/1A and 3 Acres in S. No. 230/7A, in favour of the
Petitioners u/s 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act. It was also held that the pattas standing in the name
of M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries, in respect of these survey numbers and the sub-division records be revised and modified suitably.
xiii) Aggrieved by the order, M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, which stood accepted vide impugned order.
xiv) The impugned order has been challenged by the Petitioners on the ground that the Commissioner of Land Administration, wrongly held that the
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, had no power or authority to reopen the case in 1996, which was settled in the year 1952,
by exercising the powers under G.O.Ms. No. 1400 CT and RE Department dated 21.11.1975, on the ground that as per G.O.Ms. No. 714, the
Settlement Officer had the power to condone the delay in filing appeal/revision before him.
xv) The ground is also taken that u/s 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
the ''Act''), the Settlement Officer is subordinate to the Director and is bound by the lawful instructions, issued by him from time to time, and that
the Section further empowers the Director to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in
respect of which appeal lies to the Tribunal.
xvi) It was in exercise of power u/s 5(2) of the Act that the case was earlier remanded back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, to
make a fresh enquiry. It is also the ground that the Commissioner of Land Administration failed to appreciate that the order dated 31.07.1952,
resulting in the grant of patta in favour of A.K. Renganathan, did not have binding effect, since he had failed to establish the claim for patta in 1952,
in respect of the properties, nor the provisions of Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act, authorized the Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of
patta.
xvii) The ground is also taken that the Commissioner of Land Administration, wrongly held that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal or revision after 29.07.1987, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 714 dated 29.06.1987.
xviii) The other ground of challenge pleaded in the petition is, that the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Land Administration that A.K.
Renganathan, Ex-Zamindar and his wife Karpagambal had settled the properties in favour of their sons in 1944, which is subsequent to 1944, is
erroneous as neither Renganathan nor his wife had any subsisting claim for patta in the year 1952. It is also pleaded that the Commissioner of Land
Administration wrongly held that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had no locus standi to question the order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, passed on 31.07.1952.
xix) The ground is also taken that the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Land Administration is contrary to the facts established in the case,
therefore, not sustainable.
In the counter filed on behalf of respondenet No. 1, it has been stated as under:
It is submitted that Koyambedu and Thirumangalam villages in erstwhile Chengalpattu (now Chennai district) district. Koyambedu was an Inam
Estate and Thirumangalam was a Zamin Estate. Koyambedu village was notified in G.O.Ms. No. 3157, Revenue Department dt. 9.12.1950 and
taken over on 09.01.1951 under the provision of T.N. Estates (A and CR) Act XXVI/48. These villages were surveyed as a single unit and called
as Koyambedu village Paimash Nos. of Koyambedu village were given survey members 1 to 206 and Paimash Numbers of Thirumangalam village
were given Survey Nos. 207 to 322, The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor by his order dated 31.7.1952 in Dis.S. No. 28/Zamin/1951,
allowed ryotwari patta for various Survey Numbers. During the settlement paimash Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 12, 27, 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 36, 40, 41, 44 to
47, 49 to 57, 62 to 70, 88, 299 and 300 were clubbed in New S. No. 230/7 with an extent of 24.69 acres and paimash Nos. 71 to 80, 82, 83,
93 to 95, 100, 104 to 107 were clubbed together as S.No. 229/1 with an extent of 10.78 acres. According to the provision of the Tamil Estate
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1848 - Act XXVI/48, against the ryotwari patta granted u/s 12 of the said Act next appeal should
be preferred before the Estate Abolition Tribunal. But in this case, no appeal was preferred by any one against the order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Chithoor and that therefore, it has become final.
It is submitted that in the year 1996, Thiru Elumalai and 20 other represented by their Power Agent Thiru R. Chandrasekaran filed a petition to
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement claiming patta for an extent of 2.28 acre in S.No. 229/1 and for 2.06 acre in S.No. 230/7
stating that the lands are under their possession and enjoyment since 1914 and Tvl.A.K. Ranganathan and A.R. Rajagopalan have no rights over
the land. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement condoned delay citing the G.O.Ms. No. 1400, Revenue Department dated
21.11.74 and directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to take up this petition for enquiry. At this juncture, Thiru B. Balakrishnan joined the fray by
filing application for grant of patta for the above lands. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement by his letter No. D2/11749/96
dated 1.10.96 directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai to consider his petition also when he takes up enquiry. The Said B.
Balakrishnan had obtained directions from the High Court, Chennai in W.P. No. 13186/99, W.P. 8643/98 to dispose his petition within 8 weeks.
The Assistant Settlement Officer after enquiry, dismissed the petition of Tvl.R. Chandrasekaran and B. Balakrishnan as they were ineligible to get
patta u/s 11(a) of Tamil Nadu Act XXVI/48. Aggrieved, Thiru B. Balakrishnan filed a writ petition before the High Court on 14.9.98 and the
Hon''ble High Court by their order dated 22.9.98 dismissed the writ petition stating that the Petitioner has a remedy by way of filing an appeal. He
filed an appeal to the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur who by his order dt. 10.11.98 dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Thiru R.
Chandrasekaran filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur on 14.9.98 which was not pursued by the Settlement Officer for want of
certain documents from the Petitioner and this appeal was closed on 2.6.99.
It is submitted that aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer, Thanjavur Tvl.B. Balakrishnan and R. Chandrasekaran filed revisions to the
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement. At this time also, Thiru B. Balakrishnan filed W.P. No. 1880/99 before the Hon''ble High
Court by the order dt. 9.2.97 the Hon''blel High Court directed the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to dispose of the
Revision petition within a period of 5 months. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlemenet by his order dated 5.7.99 in proc. R.P.
1/99 (Rc.D2/19575/98) set aside the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai and Settlement Officer, Thanjavur and allowed
ryotwari patta for the suit lands in favour of Thiru B. Balakrishnan as the power holder of the said suit property. Against the orders of
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Tvl. Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. filed Revision petition to the
Commissioner of Land Administration. Thiru Chandrasekaran who was the Petitioner before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement also filed a petition challenging the order of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement. Tmt. Kiliammal and 12 others, who
revoked the power of attorney given in favour of Thiru Balakrishnan, earlier have also filed a petition as they are the legal heirs of Amavasai. (It is a
land covered by Section 15 of the Act and passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor allowing patt u/s 12 to 14 of Act XXXVI/1948
cannot be questioned before the Settlement forum.
As regards grounds raised it is submitted that the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement which is unsustainable in law and out of his
jurisdiction.
It is misconstrued that the G.O.Ms. No. 1400, CT and RE dated 1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 714, CT and RE dated 23.6.87, have empowered the
Director of Survey and Settlement to condone the delay to reopen the case in 1996 which was settled in the year 1952. It is pertinent to mention
the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon''ble High Court of Madras reported in 328 MLJ 1974, wherein the Hon''ble Bench had categorically
held that if the lower authority had no power to condone the delay, the appellate authority also cannot condone the delay occurring before the
lower authority. When the application for grant of patta under the provision of the Abolition Act was made to Director of Survey and Settlement
belatedly he should have summarily rejected it as barred by limitation instead of calling for report from the Assistant Settlement Officer.
As mentioned supra the Director of Survey and Settlement cannot condone the delay that occurred before the Assistant Settlement Officer, lower
forums i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer and Settlement Officer and that too when there is a subsisting order of the Assistant Settlement Officer u/s
12.
It is a settled matter before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor. It is evident from the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the
binami character of the Zamindar''s wife and patta stood in the name of his sons were all considered by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor
before allowing patta u/s 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, the ancestors of the Petitioners had since alienated the lands, some 50 years
ago, the Petitioners cannot make their claim now.
The explanations given in para 24 of order of Commissioner of Land Administration is the self explanatory for setting aside the irregular order
passed by the Director of Survey and Settlement.
The Petitioners have stated that the 5th Respondent had suppressed many material facts before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor. In this
regard, it is submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor granted ryotwari patta to the erstwhile Zamindar u/s 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of
the Act XXVI/48. According to Section 15(2)(a) of the said Act any person aggrieved by such decision u/s 12, 13 or 14 may within two months
from the said date of the decision appeal to the Tribunal. As such, the Director of Survey and Settlement has no jurisdiction to entertain any
application against the grant of patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer u/s 12, 13 or 14. Notwithstanding this section, the Director of Survey and
Settlement is barred from entertaining such application as per G.O. Ms. No. 714 CT and RE Department, dated 23.6.87. Only after considering
these rule provisions the Commissioner of Land Administration has set aside the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai.
The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor considered all these aspects before allowing patta u/s 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act which is final.
The order of the Director of Survey and Settlement is not only against the provisions of Act XXVI/48 but also unsustainable in law as the ryotwari
patta granted in favour of the power of Attorney. It is the settled law that power holder cannot go beyond his principals. The Director of Survey
and Settlement has conveniently forgotten that by virtue of the ryotwari patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chithoor, the 5th
Respondent had lawfully alienated large extent of land in these S. Nos. to TNHB of valuable consideration. The Director of Survey and Settlement
without mentioning the above facts arbitrarily granted patta to the power holder, that too, without setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement
Officer, Chithoor. The order of Director of Survey and Settlement has only unsettled the matter which was settled as early in the year 1952. It is
necessary to point out that only after the Revision filed by the 5th Respondent and the order of Director of Survey and Settlement was stayed by
the then Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration on 28.9.99, the power holder of the Petitioner in this W.P. filed a
Revision petition against the order of Director of Survey and Settlement.
In order to appreciate the controversy in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to consider the orders passed by the authorities, under the
Act. Vide order dated 13.10.1952, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, entertained application, filed by A.K. Ranganathan, u/s 12 of the
Act for grant of Ryotwari Patta of the lands mentioned in schedule to those proceedings. It was held that the lands were situated in Thirumangalam
Village of Thirumangalam Estate, which was notified by the Government u/s 1(4) of the Act, and taken over by the District Collector on
03.01.1951.
A notice under Rule 3(1) of the Rules was issued vide G.O.272b Rev. Dated 12.10.1950 and duly published in the village on 08.03.1951 for
holding enquiry on 24.12.1951. The notice was also affixed on the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor with a copy to A.K.
Ranganathan. The claim was rejected by the Manager of Estate, Maduranthagam, for paimash numbers 583 to 641. The numbers were found to
be Nattam Jari lands for which, it was observed that A.K. Renganathan, was not entitled to Ryotwari patta.
On the objection, the claim for paimash numbers 583 to 641, was given up. It was held in the order, that A.K. Ranganathan was Zamindar of
Thirumangalam, who acquired the Zamin rights in the village, by the registered document No. 2946 of 1929. The document was registered in his
name vide registered sale deed No. 137 dated 12.12.1929. He purchased the private Kambatham lands measuring 200 acres in his wife''s name,
at consideration of Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only). It was also held that all other lands applied for in the application, was
covered by sale deeds during the year 1930 to 1945, wherein, the Kudivaram rights were purchased from the ryotes for consideration, which
were in his wife''s name as binami.
On the death of wife of A.K. Ranganathan, the only daughter acknowledged that her mother was a binamidar, and executed a release document
dated 19.07.1950, declaring that she has no interest in the private lands in the Estate. After the death of his wife, A.K. Ranganathan issued patta
with respect to all these lands, in the name of 3 sons on 26.03.1949 and the lands were registered in the name of 3 sons. The authority explained
that this was done just to keep a distinction between zamin rights and the private interest for assisting the procedure followed by him from the very
beginning.
The claim of the landholder was that all these lands were his private lands and in his possession for personal enjoyment. His wife was only a
binamidar, which was duly acknowledged by the sons and daughters.
A positive finding was recorded that A.K. Ranganathan, was the registered landholder for the village of Thirumangalam, and the Documentary
evidence covered the Kambatham rights in lands applied for, which were shown to be in the personal enjoyment of A.K. Ranganathan from 1929
onwards. The other lands were purchased from the ryots and were also in continuous possession of binamidar since 1931 since 1941 to June,
1945.
The Assistant Settlement Officer, therefore, held that the only point for consideration with regard to the issue of patta, comprising of lands,
belonging to his sons. It was further held that the application correctly fell u/s 12, for the following reasons:
i) The patta has been issued only on 25.03.1949 which is after 1945;
ii) The 3 sons have not paid a single paise towards rent for these lands which are registered in their name;
iii) The sons have never been in personal cultivation of these lands which is looked after by the father of the applicant.
iv) Three sons have given a joint statement that patta may be issued in the name of their father. From the above points, it can be seen that the 3
sons are not ryots which is defined in Estate Land Act as a person who holds for the purpose of the agriculture ryoti land in an estate on condition
of paying to the landlord the rent which is legally due upon it. It must be added here even while calculating the advance compensation payable to
the landholder in this village, these lands have been treated as private lands of the landholder for which he is not entitled for compensation. Under
these circumstances, I hold that the application has been correctly made u/s 12 of the Abolition Act and the applicant is entitled for a ryotwari patta
for the Kambatham land u/s 12(a)(i) of the Abolition Act and for the remaining lands u/s 12(b)(ii).
u/s 15 of the Act, the power of adjudicationi u/s 12, 13 and 14 vests with the Settlement Officer, and appeal is provided u/s 15 of the Act
against the order passed. It is not in dispute that no appeal against the order was preferred, therefore, the order attained finality.
Balakrishnan filed Writ Petition No. 8643 of 1998, by pleading therein that he had submitted a representation to the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on 22.07.1996, which had not been disposed off inspite of enquiry was conducted on 22.11.1996.
This Court disposed off, the writ with direction to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, to pass order on the representation of the
Petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
The representation made by the Petitioner was decided against him, which was challenged by the Petitioner, by filing W.P. No. 14267 of
1998. The writ petition was dismissed, in view of the alternative remedy of appeal and liberty was granted to the Petitioner to raise all the points
raised in the writ in appeal.
After dismissal of the writ petition for want of alternative remedy, the Petitioner filed appeal which was rejected by the Settlement Officer, in
view of the order dated 31.07.1952, by holding that the claim raised by the Petitioners was barred by limitation. The order was challenged before
the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, which was dismissed, as time barred, having not been filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of order of
the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer also held that even W.P. No. 14267 of 1998 was filed beyond 30 days. This was for the
reason that even if benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act is given still the appeal was barred by limitation.
The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the decision, preferred revision before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, u/s 11(a)
of the Act. Learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement wrongly held that Settlement Officer held that writ before the High
Court was maintainable only if it was filed within 30 days from the receipt of order. These observations, on the face of it, are unwarranted, as the
Settlement Officer, nowhere held that writ could be filed within 30 days. The reasoning given was that the appeal before the Settlement Officer was
barred by limitation, having not been filed within 30 days of the order, as the writ was also filed after the period of Limitation prescribed for filing
the appeal.
The observation by Settlement Officer was made in view of the fact, that even if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was to be given
to the Petitioners, still appeal would be barred by limitation.
Learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, also held that the Settlement Officer failed to take note of G.O.Ms. No. 714,
which empowered the condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days as per the rules, framed vide G.O.Ms. No. 714 Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowment dated 23.06.1987. The finding was recorded that it was incumbent on the Settlement Officer, to have given opportunity of
hearing, so that the Petitioners could explain the reason for the delay.
This finding again, on the face of it, is not sustainable, as even if the Settlement Officer, had jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period
of 30 days, still ground had to be made out, in grounds of appeal or appeal should have been filed with application for condoning the delay. In
absence of pleading to condone the delay or an application accompanying the appeal, the appellate authority was bound to dismiss the appeal
without proceeding further with the matter. The comments of learned Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, therefore, are contrary
to the established law. In any case, in the event of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, coming to the conclusion that ground was
made out to condone the delay, he could have remanded back to the case by condoning the delay, but had no authority to proceed with the
matter, by holding that the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to condone the delay by 30 days and that delay ought to have been condoned and
the matter decided on merit, even in absence of pleadings showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
It was for the Petitioner to show sufficient cause to condone the delay, before appeal could be entertained. It may be observed herein that
stricture passed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, against sub-ordinate authorities were uncalled for.
The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, thereafter, framed the following points for consideration:
i) that the case was of civil nature, but it suffers from serious lapses of settlement provisions, under Estate Abolition Act 26 of 1948.
ia) This finding itself was good enough to reject appeal, by giving liberty to the parties, to raise the dispute in the civil Court. But for the reasons
best known to the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, this was not done, and he proceeded to decide the matter on merit.
ii) This Court, vide order dated 09.02.1999, had directed the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to look into the request of the
revision Petitioner and pass orders within a period of five months.
iia) The observation of the High Court meant, that the matter is to be adjudicated on merits by the authorities concerned, and cannot be taken to
be the order of this Court ordering decision on merit of the dispute.
iii) that the case is concerned only for two survey numbers namely 229/1A and 230/7A, and certain old paimash numbers connected with it. The
paimas numbers were wrongly included in the documents by the Respondent without any sale or transaction or consent of revision Petitioner,
therefore, it was unauthorised, high handed and unauthentiated.
iiia) This finding again cannot be sustained, as the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, in exercising the jurisdiction, even u/s 5(2)
of the Act could not interfere with the order passed in the year 1952, as the jurisdiction u/s 5(2) could be exercised only against order, where no
appeal was provided. The order passed in the year 1952 was appealable u/s 15 of the Act.
The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, thereafter, considered the factual position and allowed the revision, and set aside
the order of Settlement Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer. Instead of remanding the case back for adjudication on merit, proceeded to grant
patta for 1.76 acres in S.No. 229/1A and 3 acres in 230/7A in favour of the Petitioner B. Balakrishnan, S/o. R.D. Baskar, who is the power of
attorney holder on that date, out of the excess area, which remained unsettled so far u/s 11(a) of the Act, as shown in the schedule. He also set
aside the patta, which stood in the name of M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries in S. No. 229/1A and 230/7A and the land sub-division records. This
part of the order, on the face of it, is unsustainable in law, for want of jurisdiction.
The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has no jurisdiction to order patta in the name of B. Balakrishnan, who was merely a
power of attorney agent of the Petitioners. It was also not permissible to order change of patta from the name M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries.
M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries filed revision against the order before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
Learned Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent No. 1'') considered all the
points, andreversed the findings recorded by recording as under:
In the impugned orders, the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, has considered the following points as if they are in favour
for the deciding the case in favour of the Respondent Thiru B. Balakrishnan:
i) The suit land are in S.No. 229/1A and 230/7A and certain old paimash Nos. Connected with. How they were included in all the documents by
M/s. Krishna Tiles without any sale or transaction or consent of the Revision Petitioner is quite unauthorised, highhanded and unauthenticated.
ii) In Doct. No. 1937/1929 dated 12.12.1929, Thiru Saminaidu while selling the Kudiwaram Rights of lands to Tmt. Karpagambal, he included 80
paimash Nos. roughly measuring 100 acres which was not actually purchased by him. This transaction is irregular.
iii) As per Doct. No. 1009/1944 a deed of settlement was executed by Tmt. Karpagambal and her husband Thiru A.K. Ranganathan in favour of
their 3 sons. After the death of Tmt. Karpagambal during the year 1948, this Settlement deed was not cancelled. How, Thiru A.K. Ranganathan
got patta in his name in the year 1952 without cancelling the Settlement deed is questionable and it is found to be irregular.
iv) In the sale Doct. No. 1937/1929 executed by Thiru Saminaidu in favour of Tmt. Karpagambal, the paimash Nos. of certain lands were not
mentioned. But these paimash Nos. were included without any authority in the settlement deeds No. 980 and 981/1954. The undivided property in
S.No. 229/1A as per Document No. 980 and 981/1954 should not have been sold by Thiru A.R. Rajagopalan and his son Thiru A.R.
Santhanakrishnan, as they got no right to sell away the undivided property. The remaining portion of 1.87 acres in S.No. 229/1A after acquisition
by the TNHB and selling out to CPWD remains unsettled even as on date which Thiru B. Balakrishnan claims for.
v) Prior to a partition among the family members of Thiru A.K. Ranganathan and Tmt. Karpagambal executed in 1972 as per Document No.
1437/72, the selling of suit lands to Tvl. Krishna Tiles and Potteries during 1971 was wrong and irregular.
vi) In 1972, an extent of 17.59 acres of lands in S.No. 230/7A was sold by the Family members to M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries, which is
based on Doct. No. 980 and 981/1954. So these transactions were irregular due to invalid documentary evidences.
vii) There is different of extent in between the Settlement Register in S. No. 230/7A and the Tahsildar''s Certificate dated 13.01.1987. The
Settlement register shows the extent of 27.66 acres whereas Tahsildar''s certificate mentions 19.09 acres. The Petitioner''s claim of 3 acres lies
within the different extent of 8.57 acres. M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries Pvt. Ltd. did not produce the actual patta copy of the suit lands.
viii) Tvl. Alavattan, Amavasai, Appu purchased the lands in 1914 and 1915 as per Registered sale deeds and these lands were found to be under
continuous possession enjoyment and rightful ownership of the original buyers from 13.11.1914 and at present of the Revision Petitioner Thiru B.
Balakrishnan. Tvl. Krishna Tiles have encroached and trespassed the lands.
ix) A verification of the proceedings of Commissioner of Land Reforms in J2/2518/90 dated 14.03.90 reveals that the Commissioner ordered for
tracing out the real owner of the S.No. 229/1A before passing orders on the appeal petition under U.L.C. Regulations. This shows that the owner
of the S.No. 229/1A is somebody else.
x) Thiru B. Balakrishnan obtained irrevocable Power of Attorney from the legal heirs of the original land owners viz. Tvl. Alavattan, Amavasai and
Appu. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor should not have issued patta in the name of Thiru A.K. Ranganathan, for the benami land
holdings of his wife. Area reconciliation Survey No. wise or Paimash No. wise was not done during Settlement.
All the points raised were answered as under:
Point No. I: The Paimash Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 12, 27, 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 36, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 49 to 57, 62 to 70, 88, 299 and 300 were correlated
to new S.No. 230/7 and the paimash Nos. 71 to 80, 82, 83, 93 to 95, 100, 104 to 107 were correlated to S.No. 229. In document Nos.
8/1930, 791/1930, 231/1930, 653/1931 and 953/1931 as detailed in Paragraph 19 above, the Respondent''s predecessors in title viz. Alavattan
and his sons sold the lands to Tmt. Karpagambal, W/o. Thiru A.K. Ranganathan. Subsequently, these lands came into the lands of their legal heirs
and sold by them to M/s. Krishna Tiles and Potteries Pvt. Ltd. When the legal heirs of Tvl. Alavattan and Amavasai sold the lands in 1929, 1930
and 1931 itself through registered documents, the comments of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement are unwarranted and
without any basis.
Point No. II: In Document No. 1937/1929 dated 12.12.1929, Thiru Saminaidu and his brothers sold the Kudiwaram rights of the lands, houses,
wells etc. to Tmt. Karpagambal. This document covers large extent of lands which the family of said Saminaidu acquired from the ryots of
Thirumangalam Village. This has no relevance with the case of the Respondent before me, since the lands of the Respondent''s predecessors are
not covered by this document. The Respondent''s predecessors have sole the Kudiwaram right of the land direct to the Zamindar''s wife through
various registered documents. So they cannot question the validity of the other sales for which they are not connected with.
Point No. III: As per Doct. No. 1009/1944, Thiru A.K. Ranganathan and his wife Tmt. Karpagambal, settled their landed properties and their
business called M/s. Krishna Brickworks among their 3 sons, viz. Tvl.A.R. Swaminathan, A.R. Krishnamoorthy and A.R. Rajagopalan, because
of their desires to see that their sons should be put into business and earn for themselves and they should also be in possession of the Kudivaram
rights. Tmt. Karpagambal died in 1948 and her only daughter acknowledged that her mother was a binamidar and accordingly, she executed a
release document No. 816/1950 declaring that she has no interest in the private lands in Estate. The Zamindar Thiru A.K. Ranganathan also issued
patta for all the lands to his three sons on 25.03.1949 because to keep a distinction between Zamin rights and the private interest in the estate for
assisting the procedure followed by him from the very beginning. The 3 sons of A.K. Ranganathan have filed a joint statement before the Asst.
Settlement Officer, Chittoor, stating that the patta may be issued in their father''s name. So it is clear from the proceedings of the Asst. Settlement
Officer, Chittoor that the binami character of the Zamindars wife and patta stand in the name of his sons were all considered by the Asst.
Settlement Officer, Chittoor before allowing patta u/s 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the Settlement deed 1009/1944 relied by the
Respondent has no additional value in favour of him.
Point No. IV: As already stated in Point No. 1, the sale of certain lands by Thiru Saminaidu to Tmt. Karpagambal by Doct. No. 1937/1929 has
no relevancy with the lands of the Respondent''s predecessors. Subsequent settlement of the property among the family members of Thiru A.K.
Ranganathan as per Doct. No. 980 and 981/1954 is within their family only and the validity and legality of these documents should be questioned
only by the family members and the Respondent has nothing to criticise the family settlement of the Revision Petitioner.
Point No. V and VI: As explained above, the family settlement in Doc. No. 980 and 981/1954, subsequent settlement among themselves in 1972
and selling of the lands by the family members to their company, viz. Krishna Tiles and Potteries (P) Ltd. are not relevant to the Respondent. Once
their predecessors sold their lands to the Revision Petitioner''s predecessors, they have nothing to question the validity of settlement, sale etc. by
the purchasers'' family members.
Point No. VII: As per settlement register, the extent in S.No. 230/7A, is 27.66 acres. After acquisition of certain lands by the TNHB, and sale to
CPWD or settlement among the family members, the land belonging to M/s. Krishna Tiles is 19.09 acres for which the Tahsildar issued a
certificate on 13.01.1987. The contentions of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement that this difference in extent is in support of
the Respondent is unacceptable and unwarranted.
Point No. VIII: It is true that Tvl. Alavattan, Amavasai and Appu purchased the lands in 1914 and 1915 as per Registered Sale Deeds. But they
and their legal heirs sold the suit lands to Tmt. Karpagambal in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 as per Registered Sale Deeds. It is not known how
they would be under continuous possession, enjoyment and rightful ownership as observed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement till now even after the sales in 1929, 1930, 1931 and it is highly irregular to say that the purchasers have encroached the suit lands.
Point No. IX: It is seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Reforms J2/2518/1990, dated 12.03.1990 that on an appeal by Tvl.
Krishna Tiles and Potteries (P) Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T., Poonamallee passed u/s 9(5) of T.N. Urban Land
Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978, the Commissioner of Land Reforms directed the Assistant Commissioner, ULT to ascertain the ownership of
S.No. 229/1A for deciding the actual excess land under the Act. Accordingly, the Asst. Commissioner, ULT, verified and found that the land in
S.No. 229/1A belong to Tvl.ARR Trustee and deducted the extent in S.No. 229/1A from the total excess land. The words to ascertain the
ownership for S.No. 229/1A occurring in this orders have been taken by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement as an
advantage for the Respondents claim which is funny.
Point No. X: It is seen from the Genealogical tree submitted by Thiru B. Balakrishnan before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai that
Thiru Alavattan had 4 sons viz. Nariyan, Amavasai, Nagan and Gangan and that Tmt. Kiliammal and 12 others are the legal heirs of late Amavasai,
Tmt. Kiliammal and otheres had executed the power of Attorney in favour of Thiru R.D. Baskar, father of Thiru Balakrishnan as per Doct. No.
832/1995 dt. 23.8.95 and Doct. No. 867/95 dated 31.8.95 to contest the case on their behalf. Subsequently as per Doct. No. 171 and 179
dated 5.2.1996 Tmt. Kiliammal and others cancelled the Power of Attorney given to Thiru R.D. Baskar. So, Thiru B. Balakrishnan is having the
Power of Attorney given by the legal heirs of Tvl. Nariyan, Nagan and Gangan only. Without the Power of Attorney of Tmt. Kiliammal and others,
who are the legal heirs of Thiru Amavasai, Thiru B. Balakrishnan is eligible for 75% share of the property measuring 2.47 acres belonging to Thiru
Alavattan as shown in (ii) and (iii) under paragraph 18 above, which comes to 1.85 acres only. But the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement has allowed patta in the name of the 75% power holder, Thiru B. Balakrishnan for a total extent of 4.76 acres without verifying the
Legal Heirship Certificates and the documents empowering or cancelling the Power of Attorney. Before the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Tiruvannamalai, Thiru B. Balakrishnan filed a Genealogical tree stating that Tmt. Kiliammal and 12 others are the legal heirs of Amavasai. Now,
before me, he has filed a Genealogical tree stating that Tvl. Natesan and 5 others are the legal heirs of (Late) Amavasai. This creates doubts in my
mind as to whom are the actual legal heirs of (Late) Amavasai.
The Commissioner of Land Administration recorded a finding, that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement had no power or
locus standi to question the validity of the orders issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor on 31.07.1952 after the lapse of 46 years.
A positive finding was recorded that the main criteria for issue of patta u/s 11(a) of the Act, is that all ryoti land should be properly included in
the holding of the ryot before the notified date. The notified date in this case was 09.01.1951 and in order to get a patta for the lands, the
Respondent''s predecessors, namely, Tvl. Alavattan, Amavasai and Appu should have been in possession of the suit lands as on 09.01.1951 in
their holdings. But they had sold the lands and Kudivaram rights in the land during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 by way of registered sale deeds,
therefore, the case of the Respondent''s predecessor was liable to fail on this ground alone.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenged the impugned order by submitting the following facts:
2) The Petitioners filed W.P. No. 24522 of 2001 challenging the proceeding of the 1st Respondent dated 14.05.2001. The very same
proceedings have been under challenge in W.P. No. 12613 of 2001 by an alleged Power of Attorney in which these Petitioners are Respondents
6 to 11 therein.
3) The subject land bearing Doc. No. 1703/1914, SRO, Sembium dated 13.11.1914 was purchased by these Petitioner''s ancestor, great
grandfather Alavattan from Tmt. Vedammal to an extent of 5.03 acres. They are the descendants of the above said Ammavasai and thus they are
co-owners of the subject land bearing Doc. No. 1703/1914 by way of inheritance.
4) The another subject land bearing Doc. No. 1702/1914, SRO, Sembium dated 13.11.1914 was purchased by these Petitioner''s great
grandfather Ammavasai, S/o. Alavattan from Tmt. Vedammal to an extent of 5.05 acres and thus these Petitioners are the co-owners of the
subject land by way of inheritance.
5) One more subject land bearing Doc. No. 505/1915, SRO, Sembium dated 4.5.1915 was purchased by these Petitioner''s great grandfather
Alavattan from the sons and grandson of another Alavattan namely, Boee, Chinnappan, Vaithan, Ammavasai and Thoppulan to an extent of 2.88
acres. Thus, these Petitioners are the co-owners of the subject land by way of inheritance.
6) These Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the above said lands. The 5th Respondent made attempts to dispossess them from the
above said lands. These Petitioners belong to Schedule caste community. They all are poor people. Therefore, they have given Power of Attorney
to one Shri.R.D. Baskar to approach the appropriate revenue authorities on behalf of them to get patta in their name. He also approached the
revenue authority to get patta to their property as mentioned above. But during the proceedings, he passed away. In the meanwhile his son i.e. the
6th Respondent in the above said writ petition contested the matter before the revenue authorities including for these Petitioners.
7) The 6th Respondent made attempt to get patta in his name and also wanted to sell the property. Therefore, these Petitioners appeared before
the 1st Respondent and implead themselves as parties to the revision petition.
8) One R. Chandrasekar also a Power of Attorney appeared before the revenue authorities for and on behalf of Valmurthy and others. The said
Valmurthy and otheres have now disowned their rights in the subject land and filed memo with affidavit in this regard in W.P. No. 12613 of 2001.
9) That the said B. Balakrishnan filed one document in respect of the Genealogical Tree of Alavattan before the Asst. Settlement Officer,
Thiruvannamalai which includes these Petitioners. Therefore, it is evident that the said Balakrishnan has want only included the said Valmurthy and
others as interested parties in the subject land in order to enrich himself by unjust means.
10) That these Petitioners are entitled � share in respect of subject lands.
11) That the Revenue authorities have not taken any steps to implement the Estate (Abolition conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI 1948 and
amendments issued by the Govt. from time to time in favour of the Ryotwari. Had the Revenue authorities properly implemented the said Act,
these Petitioners and other affected poor people would have got patta to their lands owned by them. But in order to help the rich persons as like
that of the 5th Respondent the revenue authorities have not implemented the said Act for the reasons best known to them. In this regard the 1st
Petitioner has made a detailed representation dated 24.02.2011 to the authorities concerned to implement the said Act.
12) That these Petitioners'' ancestor Mudichur Alavattan had 4 sons. They were Nariyan, Ammavasai, Gangan and Nagan. They are direct
descendants of Ammavasai.
13) One another Alavattan had 5 sons. They were Boee, Chinnappan, Vaithan, Ammavasai and Thoppulan.
14) From the above, it is very clear that both Alavattan had more than one son. But for the reasons best known to the 6th Respondent i.e. the
alleged Power Agent, he has averred in his counter affidavit that another Alavattan had only one son. The 6th Respondent has further averred that
the said Alavattan was the son of Ammavasai. This is not correct. In both cases Ammavasai''s were the sons of one Alavattan and another
Alavattan respectively.
15) Before the 1st Respondent, the 6th Respondent averred in his revision petition that the Mudichur Alavattan had only one son namely
Ammavasai. But in W.P. No. 12613 of 2001 before this Hon''ble Court, it was represented that 3 sons of Mudichur Alavattan, namely, Nagan,
Nariyan and Gangan and also the descendants of another Alavattan son Late Ammavasai. Therefore, he himself admitted in W.P. No. 12613 of
2001 that there were 4 sons for Alavattan. But in his counter affidavit, he made false averments. The said Valmurthy and others made false
averments before this Hon''ble Court in C.S. No. 737 of 1997 and obtained order alleging that the Alavattan had only one son. The said suit is
transferred to the Fast Track Court No. V, Chennai, due to pecuniary jurisdiction and is pending.
16) The 6th Respondent contested the case before the revenue authorities for these Petitioners also as stated above. But before the 1st
Respondent and also before this Hon''ble Court he has willfully shown the said Valmurthy and others as if they are the descendants of the
grandfather of the Petitioners. From this it is very evident that the 6th Respondent has approached this Hon''ble Court with unclean hands.
17) These Petitioners submit that ""In the Zamin Thirumangalam upto the date 20.06.1917 Kannisamy Reddiyar was the Zamindar of
Thirumangalam and no disputes were arisen at all and also no mortgage and no promissory notes were executed"".
18) When the great grandfather of these Petitioners was alive, in the year 1917, except their property, the property of Zamin Thirumangalam was
purchased by one Perumal Naidu and in the year 1918, the said Perumal Naidu expired and then his son Sami Naidu took the charge of the
Zamindar, Zamin Thirumangalam Village No. 81, Thirumangalam Zamin from 1918 to 1929. Due to non-payment of property tax to the revenue
authority, these Petitioner''s father''s grandfather i.e. Mudichur Alavattan, executed a promissory note in respect of the properties purchased by him
dated 09.01.1920 and the elder son of their great grandfather namely one Nariyan made a portion of the property to encumbrance by way of
executing the promissory note dated 06.01.1923 in favour of the said Zamindar, Sami Naidu and then the younger son of their great grandfather
Ammavasai, Nagan and Gangan executed the deed of one demand simple mortgage to the said Zamindar Sami Naidu and the 1st deed of simple
mortgage was executed by elder son of their great grandfather one Nariyan on 23.10.1918. Their grandfather also made a promissory note on
demand dated 30.09.1924 to the said Zamindar Sami Naidu. In these circumstances the Zamin Thirumangalam Village has been changed into No.
79 instead of No. 81.
19) While the facts being so, the said Zamindar Sami Naidu was unable to manage the Thirumangalam Zamin and in the said circumstances the
said Zamindar had handed over the Zamin Administration and executed two sale deeds on the properties of 79, Thirumangalam Zamin in favour of
one A.K. Ranganathan bearing in Doc. No. 1936 of 1929 dated 12.12.1929 and his wife Kalpagambal (Karpagambal) bearing in Doc. No. 1937
of 1929 dated 12.12.1929. The sale deeds executed by the said Sami Naidu and his brothers and his brother''s son, revealed that the said Sami
Naidu had given the authorization to the said Kalpagambal, W/o. A.K. Ranganathan to collect the money by pointing out on demand note and
simple mortgage deed executed by the great grandfather and grandfather of the Petitioners in favour of the said Sami Naidu bearing Doc. No.
1937 of 1929.
20) The said Kalpagambal created a sale deed bearing Doc. No. 8 of 1930 dated 31.12.1929 without revealing anything about the document to
the great grandfather of the Petitioners. This document seems to be filed at the end of the year 1929 and numbered at the beginning of the year
1930. It is seen from the Documents that in lieu of the interest amount towards the mortgaged property and promissory note on demand which was
mortgaged by Nariyan only and for the amount borrowed from the then Zamin of Thirumangalam Sami Naidu by the said Nariyan, the Zamindar
family had created the said sale deed in the name of Kalpagambal, W/o. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and obtained thumb impression from the sons of
Mudichur Alavattan namely 1) Nariyan, 2) Ammavasai, 3) Gengan and 4) Nagan without revealing anything about the document. It is pertinent to
mention here that consideration had been passed on towards the sale of the said properties bearing paimash Nos. 8, 72 and 12 only (to an extent
12-10, Acre 1.54 only) to the sons of Mudichur Alavattan but not for the rest of the properties. But the said Kalpagambal, wife of A.K.
Ranganathan by illegal means registered the properties in her name by influencing her power as Zamindar. It is also pertinent to mention here that
the said Kalpagambal without paying a single paise to Nariyan, Amavasai, Gengen and Nagan had alleged to be registered the sale of the above
said properties in her name saying they had adjusted the promissory note amount executed in favour of Sami Naidu and for interest in respect of
the properties entrusted to Sami Naidu by simple mortgage which was later made over to her by Sami Naidu towards alleged sale consideration
for the purchase of the above said properties with influence of her husband in his capacity as Zamindar as stated above. It is also to be mentioned
here that the properties were mortgaged only to the then Zamin of Thirumangalam Sri. Sami Naidu. Therefore, it seems that the said Kalpagambal
illegally registered the sale in her name.
21) In the said sale deed it has been mentioned that the properties'' consideration, principal amount together with interest of on demand note made
one Nariyan executed in favour of Sami Naidu dated 6.1.1923 as due being Rs. 184.00 and further as per the simple mortgage executed on
23.10.1918 in favour of Sami Naidu and interest as due being Rs. 12.80 and both the items works out Rs. 196.80 and since the same had been
made over in favour of Kalpagambal by the aforesaid Sami Naidu and accordingly the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 196.80 stated to be
credited.
22) The Kalpagambal executed a sale deed for Rs. 1,000/- bearing Doc. No. 653 of 1931 dated 30.05.1931. This document reveals that the
sons of Mudichur Alavattan namely, 1) Nariyan, 2) Ammavasai, 3)Gengan and 4) Nagan had sole lands comprising in paimash Nos. 79, 105,
115, 116, 154, 245, 249, 293, 302, 303, 304, 257, 328, 333, 334, 122 and 123 works out 7.04 acres, but they have created a sale deed only
to an extent, Kani 4-8-7, (Acres 5.99). But only Rs. 20/- had been passed on consideration. Hence the said sale deed is a defective one and void
as per the Indian Contract Act. It is also seen that the Sub-Registrar, Sembiam, Chennai had made note of the above defective sale in the said
document. Since the aforesaid Sami Naidu had executed the deed of made over and accordingly the principal and interest amount having been
credited and the balance amount having been cleared and therefore the sum of Rs. 940/- had been credited towards their account and further in
respect of Nagan being maintained the bullock and ploughing they credited Rs. 30/- and the cash amount obtained on those days being Rs. 10/-
and further agreed to receive Rs. 20/-.
23) The Zamindar of Thirumangalam A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and his family members acquired and possessed some properties by way of family
settlement (partition) bearing Doc. No. 885 of 1937 dated 5.4.1937. But none of the properties shown in the schedule of the said documents
reveals about the property owned by them as Zamin Thirumangalam. In the said document it is clearly stated at pages 3 and 4, the Zamindar of
Thirumangalam A.K. Ranganatha Iyer started a business in the name and style of M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co., Ltd. for his own earnings and
also stated that the said company had loss or had benefit, these act affect only to the said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and not affect his family members.
24) In these circumstances, the Tamil Nadu Govt. Introduced a new Act i.e. Madras Agriculturists'' Relief Act, IV of 1938. An Act to provide for
the relief of indebted agriculturists in the province of Madras. The Govt. has also amended the said act i.e. Madras Agriculturists'' Relief
(Amendment) Act No. XXIII of 1948 dated 25.01.1949. In the meanwhile the Govt. introduced the New Act namely Madras Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 and the said Act came into effect from 2.4.1949 and the main purpose of the Act is to abolish
the Estates of the Zamindar and thereby the possession of the properties of the Zamindar were abolished and again the properties were handed
over to the real Ryotwari and as per the Act 79, Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have been aboloshed and these Petitioners property at 79,
Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have handed over to them.
25) Whereas without doing so, subsequent purchaser of 79, Thirumangalam Zamin one Mr. A.K. Ranganathan suppressed all those things before
the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor and obtained patta by illegal means in respect of the properties situated at No. 79, Thirumangalam Zamin by
showing the records as if he was also a Ryotwari. It could not be possible u/s 3(d) of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, XXVI of 1948 to get patta by the Zamin and from the above said facts it is very clear that the said A.K. Ranganathan gave some false
information with regard to the properties before the Authority concerned and got the patta u/s 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Madras Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948. But, the application for issue of patta has to be made u/s 11 only, before the
Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer would have to decide whether the said property was a ryoti land or not. This is also not considered
by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Chittoor, as stated above. Really the properties of Melvaram and Gudivaram, ought to have been granted to these
Petitioners'' great grandfather as per the said Act, whereas the authorities failed to do so. The 5th Respondent was entitled to be issued Zamin
patta only and not ryotiwari patta. But, the said Zamindar was issued patta including for the properties of Agriculturists, Varasithivinayagar
Manyam, Lands. Therefore, it is very evident that the patta was wrongly given by the said authority on 31.7.1952 and the patta was granted to the
said Zamin without effecting to survey the lands.
26) In the meanwhile the Govt. amended the said Act i.e. Act No. XLIV of 1956 dated 22.05.1957. In this amendment, it is very clearly stated
that u/s 3(ii)(e) ""the principal or any other landholder and any other person, whose rights stand transferred under Clause (b) or cease and
determine under Clause (c), shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on him by or under this Act"".
27) As per the Government order in G.O. No. 3157 (Revenue Department) dated 09.12.1950, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Chengalpattu
and Settlement Officer of Salem, effected a notice on 4.10.1975 and in the said notice it was pointed out by the authority that some corrections
were carried out in memo of Government No. 11948 J 1160(2) with regard to the property situated at South West Taluk No. 79, Thirumangalam,
Chennai District, coming under the Act of Abolition of Zamindaries, which was effected on 2.4.1949 and as per the notice dated 4.10.1973, it
was pointed out by the Revenue Authority that the Abolition of Estate Act was affected only against the Zamindar. As per the order of the
Government in G.O. No. 3157 (Revenue Department) dated 09.12.1950 the details of the Zamin Thirumangalam were not available and also the
said G.O. notified in the said Register of Koyambedu Village to an extent of 850.76 and Zamin Thirumangalam part to an extent of 395.28 acres
and they could not complete the survey work and they notify the same in the Register. But the Koyambedu land comes under the Inam land. The
Zamin Thirumangalam land comes under the Zamin. For both the lands they maintained one Register. Hence the said Act very clearly pointed out
that the ''A'' Register has to be maintained separately for Zamin Lands.
28) The said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer gave some false information with regard to the property and got patta before the ASO, Chittoor u/s 12(a)(i)
and 12(b)(ii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948. But Sections 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the said
Act clearly states as follows:
Section 12: Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta;
Section 12(a)(i): all lands (including lanka lands) which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning
of Section 3, Clause (10)(a) of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of
Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act, not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land;
Section 12(b)(ii): All land which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have
been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, but not including purchase at a sale for arrears or rent, provided that the landholder
has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandary from the
1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date;
29) Therefore on coming to know of the patta wrongly issued to the said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer by the ASO, Chittoor, the Director of Survey and
Settlement Officer had initiated SUO-MOTU action and cancelled the patta issued to the said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. The said patta was obtained
illegally through Inam Act. The said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer through the power enjoyed by him as Zamindar had influenced the authorities and
obtained patta again undue the Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXX of 1963 by referring the deed of settlement bearing Doc.
No. 981 of 1954 dated 07.09.1954. In fact as a then Zamindar he could not get such patta under the said Act. But obtained patta through
influence and for other reasons best known to the Revenue Authorities.
30) The said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer assigned lands by way of settlement to his sons 1) A.R. Krishnamurthy and his wife Lalithammapal and 2)
A.R. Rajagopal and his wife Lakshmi bearing Doc. No. 981 of 1954 dated 7.9.1954. On perusal of the above said documents it is seen that;
The total area of the land purchased by the Zamindar of Thirumangalam Perumal Naidu family works about 185.25 acres (around kani 139)
comprising 259 (224+35) paimash Nos.
31) During those periods most of Ryots people were illiterate and were also considered as untouchable in the society and were suppressed and
oppressed by the Caste Hindu people. By taking advantage of the community which their great grandfather belonged, the said Sami Naidu cheated
their great grandfather and their grandfather by way of making the properties of their great grandfather into encumbrances and thereby the said
Zamin Sami Naidu crabbed the property of their great grandfather by way of mortgaging.
32) It is seen that in Zamin Thirumangalam part, they could not complete the Survey, since they have acquired lands, which are not, comes under
the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. It has been stated that there was a difference of measurements
of lands to an extent of 21.37 Acres. Whereas the said Govinda Naidu purchased the said Zamin to an extent of 187 acres from Gopal Reddiyar
and Rangasamy Naidu purchased the Inam land to an extent of 27.45 acres. The Zamindar of Thirumangalam Kalpagambal purchased the said
Zamin land and inam land to an extent of 210.76 acre from the then Zamindar of Thirumangalam Perumal Naidu families. But originally Zamin land
was only to an extent of 157.80 acres.
The following table shows that the said Zamindar was issued patta wrongly/mistakenly to an extent of acres 326.02 instead of Acres 157.80.
The said Zamin has obtained patta both under Act XXVI of 1948 and also under Act XXX of 1963 (Inam abolition) which is not possible.
Sl. Survey Extent AcresAct XXVI of 1948 Names Act XXX of 1963 Names Names shown in the ''A''
No. Nos. notified in the ''A'' Register datednotified in the ''A'' Register datedRegister as Zamindar''s Family
31.10.1962 01.06.1973 and L.Rs.
207/1 64.57 M/s. Krishna Tiles and Madras - Zamindar Company
Pvt. Ltd.
207/2 01.23 KuppammaPoosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/3 02.08 K.Venkatarajapillai, Accountant A.S.Muthusamy Zamindar grandsons
207/4 00.60 SoundararajaIyangarPoosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/5 00.74 SoundararajaIyangarPoosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/6 01.52 SoundararajaIyangarPoosthithi M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/7 01.42 RamaNayakkan and others, M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Servant Ltd.
207/8 00.35 Temple - Temple
207/9 0.74 K.Venkatarajapillai, Accountant M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/10 01.19 K.Venkatarajapillai, Accountant Lalithambal Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/11 00.75 Thachan, Karuman S. IndiraniAmmal Zamindar''s grand daughter
207/12 18.28 M/s.Krishna Tiles and Madras - Zamindar Company
Pvt. Ltd.
207/13 08.80 Smt. Lalithambal - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/14 11.05 Smt. Lalithambal - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/15 00.90 Village People A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar Company
207/16 01.02 Village People M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots Co. Zamindar Company
Ltd.
207/17 20.56 Smt. N. Kalavathy - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/18 00.98 Village People Lalithambal Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/19 06.91 Smt. Lalithambal - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/20 00.94 Smt. Lalithambal - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/21 04.92 Smt. Lalithambal - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
207/22 14.52 A.R. Rajagopalan - Zamindar son
207/23 14.85 A.R. Krishnamoorthy - Zamindar son
207/24 06.12 1) A.R. Krishnamoorthy 2) A.R. Zamindar sons
Rajagopalan
207/25 03.35 Smt. N. Kalavathy - Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
208/1 0.33 Pidari Temple M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd.
208/2 0.59 1) DukriRamarNaikkar 2) M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
RagavaNaikkar Ltd.
208/3 0.38 Thachan, Karuman M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd.
209/1 0.33 VarasithiVinayakar Temple M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd. M/s.Krishna Tiles and Pots
Co. Ltd. M/s. Krishna Tiles and
Pots Co. Ltd.
209/2 2.38 1) K.Venkatarasapillai 2) K. M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ponnapillai Ltd.
209/3 0.71 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd.
209/4 0.83 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd.
210/1 0.18 Village People Rajagopalan Zamindar son
210/2 0.56 Panchangam V.S.Ranganathan Zamindar
210/3 2.81 A.R. Krishnamoorthy Zamindar son
211 0.22 - Road/Battai
212 0.72 - v
213 0.97 - Road/Battai
214 3.00 - Road/Battai
215 0.63 - Road/Battai
216 0.87 - Road/Battai
217 0.61 - Road/Battai
218 0.57 - Road/Battai
219 0.36 - Road/Battai
220/1 0.84 - Road/Battai
220/2 2.88 A.S. Muthusami, Managing Zamindar grandson and
Trustee, A.K. Ranganathan Zamindar
220/3 1.69 N. Ethiraj
221/1 5.80 -
221/2 0.80 Smt. A. Lakshmi Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
221/3 5.41 Smt. A. Lakshmi Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
222/1 1.29 Govindan
222/2 2.32 ChinnaMunusamy and Four
Others
223/1 21.85 Smt. A. Lakshmi Zamindar''s daughter-in-law
223/2 0.58 N. Ethiraj
223/3 0.35 Balammal 1) A.S. Muthusamy 2) A.S. Zamindar grandsons
Anantharaman
223/4 0.49 -
223/5 6.72 A.S. Muthusami, Managing Zamindar grandson and
Trustee, A.K. Ranganathan Zamindar
224/1 6.30 ChinnaMunusamy and Four
Others
224/2 0.87 N. Ethiraj
225 2.86 -
226/1 6.64 1) LoganathaNaikkar 2)
AnnamalaiNaikkar 3)
PanchalaNaikkar
226/2 0.97 -
227/1 11.17 A.S. Muthusami, Managing Zamindar grandson and
Trustee, A.K. Ranganathan Zamindar
227/2 0.16 -
227/3 1.51 Thirumangaleeswarar Temple A.R.Krishnamurthy Zamindar Son
227/4 11.27 A.R. Krishnamoorthy Zamindar Son
228/1 1.60 1) LoganathaNaikkar 2)
AnnamalaiNaikkar 3)
PanchalaNaikkar
228/2 1.56 -
228/3 0.74 MuwuttuwManyamKuttyVagairaHousing Board
228/4 0.09 1) LoganathaNaikkar 2)
AnnamalaiNaikkar 3)
PanchalaNaikkar
228/5 2.00 A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar Son
228/6 0.11 ChinnaMunusamy and Four
Others
228/7 2.42 1) LoganathaNaikkar 2)
AnnamalaiNaikkar 3)
PanchalaNaikkar
228/8 0.37 A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar Son
228/9 0.51 A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar Son
229/1 8.52 A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar Son
229/2 6.71 A.R. Rajagopalan Zamindar
230/1 2.03 1) DukriRamarNaikkar 2) 1) A.R. Krishna murthy 2) A.R. Zamindar Sons
RagavaNaikkar Rajagopalan
230/2 1.30 Thirumangaleeswarar Temple 1) A.R.Krishnamurthy 2) A.R. Zamindar Sons
Rajagopalan
230/3 0.59 Soundira Raja Ayyangar M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ltd.
230/4 0.78 1) K. Venkatarasapillai 2) K. M/s. Krishna Tiles and Pots Co.Zamindar Company
Ponnapillai Ltd.
230/5 0.36 A.K. Ranganathan Zamindar
230/6 1.00 -
230/7 27.66 A.K. Ranganathan Zamindar
230/8 5.73 M/s. Krishna Tiles and Madras Zamindar Company
Pvt. Ltd.
231/1 9.73 - 1) A.R. Krishna murthy 2) A.R. Zamindar Sons
Rajagopalan
231/2 1.23 Village People
232 0.61 -
233 12.51 -
234 7.26 Porumpokku River
From the above table, it is very evident that the Zamindar has obtained patta in different names as if he was a servant, accountant, clerk, company,
village people etc.
33) If the Govt. implemented the said Act of XXVI of 1948 in letter and spirit in respect of the Zamin lands in Thirumangalam, the people
belonging to the suppressed and illiterate would get patta as earlier. But the Zamindar had illegally and by misusing the powers enjoyed by them as
Zamindari, got patta to the subject land in their name, their legal heirs and also in the name of the company. This great Nation got independence
before 63 years, but the said Act came into force much earlier. They are troubling them in many ways. The schedule caste peoples (Ryots) are still
living in the huts.
34) The property No. 79 of Thirumangalam Zamin was actually taken by the Government as per the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 and as per the report of Salem Settlement Officer, dated 4.10.1973 the full details of the properties was not
available and subsequently the details of the properties were prepared by the same Officer without measuring the properties, by using and by
producing some false records by the said Zamindar A.K. Ranganathan and thereby the Revenue Authorities acted against the said Abolition Act
and the authorities concerned gave the patta in the name of A.K. Ranganathan and his family members. As per the statistical report dated
4.10.1973 the old village Thirumangalam was controlled by Zamin Administration and the full details of the properties were not available and on
knowing this fact on 7.5.2003, these Petitioners made a representation and thereafter made several representations to the authorities. But all the
authorities replied evasively and did not take any action to implement the said Act till date.
35) The 1st Petitioner made a representation dated 18.6.1991 to the CMDA requesting to furnish the details of Thirumangalam Village. But it was
replied to him stating that, ""it must be clearly understood that this is only by way of information and no subdivision or construction of building or
development in the land in question is valid in law unless planning permission is applied for and duly and granted for that sub-division, construction
or development"". Therefore it is very clear that the CMDA very well aware of the subject land and without considering the fact and also the
pending of the above said W.P. and also the Writ Petition No. 12613 of 2001 filed by 6th Respondent granted planning permission to M/s. Ozone
Projects Ltd. He has also made a representation dated 09.7.1991 to the Chennai District Collector requesting to furnish the details of paimash
Nos. and Survey Nos. in Thirumangalam Village, Chennai. But the said Collector has rejected the request and replied that paimash Nos. and
Survey Nos. in Tirumangalam Village, Chennai were not available in his office.
36) The Govt. introduced the said Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 for the purpose of offering the land to the Ryotwaries and the very
purpose of the said Act has been defeated by the Revenue Authorities by way of issuing patta to the Zamin on the false information furnished by
the Zamin. The subject land in 79, Thirumangalam Zamin ought to have been handed over to their great grandfather and subsequently to their legal
heirs. Whereas the Revenue Authorities did not do.
37) These Petitioners have made many requests to Revenue Authorities to implement the Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotiwari) Act
XXVI of 1948 and the amendments issued by the Govt. from time to time. But they did not do so. Therefore, they have to implement the said Act
and issue patta to these Petitioners and also to other legal heirs of Mudichur Alavattan.
On the facts stated herein above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners was that the Commissioner and Director of Survey
and Settlement had rightly come to the conclusion that the whole of the land was not sold or purchased in the name of wife in the year 1944. This
entitled the Petitioners to grant of patta and furthermore, the Settlement Officer as per the amended rule, had the jurisdiction to condone the delay
of 30 days, which he failed to exercise.
It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the power exercised by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement, in fact, is suo-motu power u/s 5(2), which entitled him to deal with the matter in the interest of justice. Therefore, it was not open to the
first Respondent to interfere with the exercise of suo-motu power, when substantially justice was done to the parties.
This contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Once suo-motu powers were exercised to challenge the order
passed by the authority under the Act, the exercise of power has to be in accordance with law. The reasoning given by the Commissioner and
Director of Survey and Settlement to hold that the appeal was wrongly rejected as time barred, on the face of it, is not sustainable in law, as
already observed. The first Respondent was right in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the second Respondent to set aside the order,
passed 46 years back against which remedy of statutory appeal was available, as the power u/s 5(2) can be exercised only in case there is no
remedy of appeal. Once remedy statutory appeal was available, it was not open to the second Respondent to exercise suo-motu power to
interfere with the order in exercise of powers under Sectioin 5(2) of the Act.
The reasoning given for setting aside of the order of appellate authority, dismissing the appeal as time barred is also perverse. It is not the case
of the Petitioners that any application for condonation of delay was moved, nor any explanation was given in the appeal for condonation of delay
by showing sufficient cause. Therefore, the Government Order, giving powers to the Settlement Officer to condone the delay, also could not be of
any help to the Petitioners.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court, in the case of Mariabackiammal (deceased) by her legal
heirs and 3 Ors. v. The District Forest Officer, Madurai North Division, Dindigul, reported in (1990 2 L.W. 478), contended that if a ryot, who is
entitled to patta under the Act, is not given patta, the character of the land will not change, and it will continue to be a ryoti land. It was also
contended that the right of the Petitioners would not be denied merely because patta was issued in favour A.K. Ranganathan in the year 1952.
This contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted, as jurisdiction vesting with the authorities, was duly exercised
and patta granted in favour of A.K. Ranganathan in the year 1952. The land, therefore, could not be said to be ryoti land, entitling the Petitioners
to claim the relief u/s 11 of the Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, has no relevance to the facts of
the present case.
The reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam, reported in
(98 L.W. 849) also cannot be of any help, as the Hon''ble Supreme Court merely held that the Civil Court''s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real
nature of the land is not ousted u/s 64C by reason of the Settlement Officer''s decision to grant or refuse to grant a patta u/s 11 r/w the proviso to
Section 3(d) of the Act.
In this view of the matter, it is not open to the Petitioners to challenge the nature of the land, as the order passed u/s 12, could have been
challenged only by way of appeal, or the parties could get their rights decided in the Civil Court. It was certainly not open to the second
Respondent to reopen the matter after lapse of 46 years, to hold that the order passed in the year 1952 was bad in law, specially when he had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order in exercise of powers u/s 5(2), as the reading of Section itself shows that power u/s 5 can be exercised to
interfere with the order against which no appeal lies to tribunal. The order u/s 12 is appealable before tribunal u/s 15 of the Act.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No. 1296 of 1986 in the case of David
Pillai v. The Settlement Officer, Madurai, decided on 18.07.1989 and the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Special
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. Arumugam, to contend that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement, has the power to revise or cancel the order passed by the Settlement Officer in exercise of suo-motu power u/s 5(2) of the Act. Those
judgment also cannot advance the case of the Petitioners, inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement has the jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Officer in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but exercise of
power can be as per the settled principles of law. The order which is in consonance with settled law cannot be interfered with in exercise of suo-
motu power.
The findings recorded by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement are contrary to the settled principles of law, therefore, the
first Respondent was right in setting aside the order.
On consideration of the matter, I find that the learned Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, was fully justified in reversing the
order passed by the second Respondent. The reasons recorded are based on materials on record, and do not call for any interference in exercise
of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Consequently, finding no merit in these petitions, the two writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. No costs. All connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.