Rajan Varma vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal and others

All these petitions can be conveniently disposed of as the facts involved are almost identical. The petitioner has purchased some pockets of land

from different individuals and all these individuals were in fact assigned lands by the State Government under a specific order. These lands were

assigned free of cost to the assignees by the State Government and the State Government also executed a patta in respect of these lands. The

assignment was conditional. The relevant condition of the patta was ""If the assignee should alienate the lands assigned within a period of 10 years

from the date of order of assignment the assignment will be liable to be cancelled without payment of any compensation for improvements"". The

petitioner''s purchase of lands from the assignees 8 in number are all admittedly within 10 years of the assignment and that is the admitted position.

Notices therefore came to be sent to the petitioner as also the original assignees to show cause as to why the assignments should not be cancelled

any why the Government should not resume the said lands. Eight different revenue cases were instituted and it is in admitted position that the

notices were served on all the assignees as also the petitioner, who was the transferee from the assignees in all the eight cases. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal passed a common order holding that the Board Standing Order No.15 concerning the assignment and the special

conditions imposed as per Form D were breached. Inasmuch as the assignees had alienated the land and parted with the possession of the same

within 10 years from the date of order of assignment. A finding was given that there was a breach of this condition.. A further finding was given that

the assignees were not in possession of the lands which were assigned to them, and as such the lands were liable to be resumed after cancellation

of the said assignment. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed the following order:

It is hereby ordered that the assignment of the aforesaid lands shall be cancelled and the said lands shall be repossessed within 30 days, an appeal

shall be maintainable before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul"".

Needless to mention that eight appeals came to be filed before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul rejected all the 8 appeals. He also confirmed

the finding that the condition of the assignment was breached. It was tried to be suggested before these revenue authorities that in fact after the sale

in favour of the petitioner, the State Government had collected land revenue from the petitioner and in respect of the same the State Government

not only recorded the name of the petitioner in the revenue papers, but also accepted the land revenue from the petitioner-purchaser, and

therefore, the State Government was estopped now from taking any action of resumption. These two orders are now challenged by these group of

petitions, wherein the petitioner is common.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention towards clause 15 of the Board Standing Order, more particularly at clause (f)

which runs as under:

Assignments whether of ordinary land or of valuable land in these areas, will be subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated to any

person (whether a member of the depressed classes or not) in any manner before the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant nor even

thereafter, except to other members of these classes"".

The rule further says,

If the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or (after the ten years) other

members of their class, owing to sale by process of law or otherwise, or if default is made in the payment of the Government revenue on the dates

prescribed, the grant will be liable to be resumed by the Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without

payment of any compensation or refund of the purchase money"".

Learned counsel would further argue that the conditions attached with patta are nothing but a natural fall out of the rules quoted above and the

learned counsel more particularly invited the attention of the court to condition No.11 of the patta. This condition is quoted for the sake of

convenience.

In the event of the assignee acting in violation of any of the conditions aforesaid. Government will impose compensation amounts to be paid by the

assignee. Further, the Government will be entitled to cancel the assignment and re-enter the above lands. The lands will thereafter vest with the

Government conclusively. The assignee will not be entitled to any compensation"". (Italics supplied by me).

The contention of the learned counsel is that this condition No.11 and the aforequoted clause regarding the ban of alienation and the effect thereof,

should be read together in conjunction and not disjunctively. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the Government could take the action of

cancellation of assignment and resumption of the possession only within the 10 years of the assignment. Learned counsel canvassed this on the

basis of the words ""the lands will thereafter vest with the Government conclusively"". The contention is that if the vesting is to be the natural effect,

then such effect can take place only within 10 years and not thereafter. Learned Government Advocate supports the orders and submits that the

language of the patta conditions or of the B.S.O. rules does not permit any such interpretation and therefore, the action taken is perfectly within the

scope of the Government''s powers.

For the sake of facts, it will be better to see the dates. The assignment was on 31.8.1973. The sales were made in all the cases on 19.6.1982

barring one where the sale was made in the year 1977. The notice to show cause was however served for the first time on 2.3.1988. It is on the

basis of this notice the revenue cases were initiated and decided. Learned counsel therefore submits that this notice dated 2.3.1988 could not have

been served after a period of more than ten years and any action which the Government had in its contemplation could have been only within ten

years of the assignment only. Considering the language of rule 15(f) and the further clause as also the conditions of the patta, it is difficult to accept

the contention that the Government has to take the action of cancellation of assignment only within 10 years from the date of the original order of

assignment. What is provided in the condition of patta is that, if the assignee should alienate the land assigned within a period of 10 years from the

date of order of assignment, then the assignment would be liable to be cancelled. Therefore it is imperative that the action could not be initiated

prior to 10 years. If the alienation is within the period of 10 years, then the Government may initiate any action and there is no period of limitation

prescribed for taking such an action. In the present case it seems that it came to the knowledge of the Government that the conditions of the

assignment were breached because of the alienation and it was therefore, the Government initiated the action. Learned counsel goes on further to

say that if this is the interpretation given, then the Government would be in a position to take the action any time and there would be no reasonable

time limit. I am afraid that the argument is not sound for the simple reason that where any limitation has to be read there has to be a specific

mention of the same in the language of the statute or the rules as the case may be. There is no such mention.

That apart a late action by the Government in this case has not prejudiced the petitioner. On the other hand, he is benefitted by continuing in

possession of the lands and reaping benefits therefrom. No prejudice is either pleaded or even displayed at the stage of arguments. The Apex

Court has held in Ram Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana, that only a prejudice of irretrievable nature on account of delay on the part of

Government to take an action, which was duly proved, would entitle a party for a relief against such action. Such is clearly not a case here.

Learned counsel then invited my attention to a decision of this court in Ramadoss, B. v. The Land Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

Madras1990 W.L.R. 427 where Rule 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules was dealt with for consideration.

The rule was specific and the very language of the rule suggested that any action which the Commissioner has to take has to be within a period of

five years from the date of the order of assignment or the date of the order of the appellate authority as the case may be and in pursuance of such

action the Commissioner may set aside, cancel, revise or in any way modify the order of assignment, There being a specific provision of limitation

on the powers of such cancellation apparent in the language of the Rule 11(3), the learned single Judge of this court held that the said power could

be exercised only within five years and not thereafter. I am afraid the language of the rule is completely different from the language of the clause

15(f) of the Board Standing Order as also the language of the conditions of patta. In that view of the matter it would be difficult to hold that the

Government could initiate the action only within 10 years from the date of assignment. The learned counsel also invited my attention to a ruling of

the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu, particularly at the observations made by the

Apex Court in paragraph 12, where the words appeared that ''if there is a time limit prescribed by the statute, then the action will have to be taken

only within the time limit''. Unfortunately for the petitioner such wordings prescribing time limit for taking action are conspicuously absent in the

rules or conditions of patta. Learned counsel also invited my attention to a decision in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, and particularly the observations made at page 434. However, I find that the factual matrix of that case is entirely different

from the present one, and therefore, the case is not applicable at all.

In this view of the matter, the writ petitions have no merit and will have to be dismissed. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, but without

any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos.1748 to 1755/89 are also dismissed.