V. Rajamani vs The District Collector, The Tahsildar and The Revenue Inspector Tahsildar Office

B. Rajendran, J.—The case of the Petitioner is that his father borrowed a loan of Rs. 500/- from the Government under the Cashew

Development Scheme in order to raise cashew garden in his land and according to the scheme, he has to repay the loan after five years at the

beginning of the sixth year, in five annual installments with an interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The Petitioner''s father could not repay the

amount. As the amount was not repaid, the Revenue Inspector, Arasarkulam, has taken over the land and brought this property for public auction

on 18.07.1973. As there were No. bidders, the property was taken over by the Government and the Revenue Inspector, Arasarkulam, himself

bought the land in favour of the Government on 18.07.1973. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai, in his order dated

06.12.1973, confirmed the sale. Thereafter, the patta standing in the name of the Petitioner''s father was also cancelled and an extent of 67 cents in

Survey No. 290/7 and an extent of 45 cents in Survey No. 335/1 have been declared as Government lands.

After the demise of his father, he was not aware of the said proceedings and therefore, he made a representation only in the year 2004

requesting the third Respondent to hand over the lands which were taken over by the Government, as he is ready and willing to repay the amount

to the Government. Subsequently, as per the representation, the District Collector, Pudukkottai District, vide proceedings dated 11.08.2004, has

directed the second Respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report on the basis of the Petitioner''s representation. Subsequently, the

Petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs. 2356.25 into the Treasury on 28.03.2008 and obtained No. Due Certificate on 11.04.2008. Thereafter,

he made a representation on 16.06.2009 to take necessary steps to hand over the lands to him and till date, the lands in question have not been

handed over to him by the third Respondent. Therefore, he has come forward with the present petition seeking a mandamus directing the third

Respondent to consider his representation dated 16.06.2009 requesting him to surrender the lands to an extent of 67 cents in Survey No. 290/7

and an extent of 45 cents in Survey No. 335/1.

When the matter was posted for admission, the learned Additional Government Advocate took time to produce some documents relating to the

enquiry conducted. It is clear that the Petitioner''s father who obtained loan long back in the year 1962, could not repay the same and ultimately,

the land itself vested with the Government after it was brought for sale. The sale was confirmed as early as on 06.12.1973 and the first

representation was made by the Petitioner on 05.05.2004. There is No. record to show what has transpired during the interregnum period viz.,

from 1973 to 2004. When the first representation was made to the first Respondent on 05.05.2004, the first Respondent vide his proceedings

dated 11.08.2004, had directed the second Respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the first Respondent, No. record is

produced insofar as to the conduct of enquiry or any orders passed pursuant to his direction. After that, all of a sudden, the Petitioner without any

reference to any order, has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,356.25 on 28.03.2008 viz., four years after his first representation and the direction to

conduct enquiry and based on this, the Tahsildar, Aranthangi, has issued No. Due Certificate to the effect that the loan obtained in CDL No.

10/61-62 and CDL No. 2/62-63 has been paid and there is No. due. Here also, No. reference has been made as to how this amount was

recovered, how the amount was arrived at and what was the enquiry proceedings. Now, based on such certificate, curiously, a representation is

made to the authority concerned to re-deliver the land which was taken over by the Government way back in the year 1973 and that too, an extent

of 1 acre 12 cents. Though the application seems to be an innocuous application to consider the representation, the net result of the representation

is to re-deliver the land which was taken over by the Government way back in the year 1973 without any enquiry at all.

In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Ingaci v. The Commissioner Devakottai and Ors.

reported in 2010 (2) L.W. 785, to which I was a party. In the said judgment, we have culled out the circumstances as to when a Mandamus can

be given and on what occasions, the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations leads to drastic consequences.

Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The Supreme Court in

the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and Others, , had observed as follows:

There are also several instances where unscrupulous Petitioners with the connivance of ""pliable"" authorities have misused the direction ""to con-

sider"" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a

representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the

representation ap-proaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to ""consider"" and dispose of the representation. When

the court disposes of the petition with a direction to ""consider"", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing

him to ""consider"" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ

proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order ""to consider"" as directing grant of relief sought in the

representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving

relief, in pursuance of orders to ""consider"", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view

of the court''s direction to ""con-sider"" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the

authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a spe-cies of cases, where there has

been a large-scale misuse of the orders ""to consider.

Therefore, considering that the Petitioner now wants to revive the stale claim which was made way back in the year 1973 merely because he has

deposited a sum of Rs. 2356.25 into the Government Treasury without any order, the mandamus sought for re-delivery of the property itself

cannot be given.

Under those circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No. costs.