Madras High Court
P.Malliga vs The Commissioner Of Survey And ... on 24 August, 2021
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. No.10596 of 2016
and M.P.No.9287 of 2016
P.Malliga ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,
Survey House,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
2. The Tahsildar,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records
of the Commissioner for Survey and Settlement, Survey Illam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005 relating to the Endorsement, dated 02.02.2016 made is
Na.Ka.E1/5298/2015, the first respondent herein and quash the same and
consequently direct the first respondent herein to consider the claim petition,
dated Nil submitted by the petitioner under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 seeking for
Ryotwari Patta under Section 11(a) of the Act 26/1948 and received by the first
respondent on 04.08.2015, with respect to the lands comprised in S.No.54/1,
Poochi Athupattu Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul
For Mr.N.Damodaran
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate.
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to call for records of the
Commissioner for Survey and Settlement, Survey Illam, Chepauk, Chennai-600
005 relating to the Endorsement, dated 02.02.2016 made is
Na.Ka.E1/5298/2015, and quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent herein to consider the claim petition submitted by the petitioner
under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 seeking for Ryotwari Patta under Section 11(a) of the Act
26/1948 and received by the first respondent on 04.08.2015, with respect to the
lands comprised in S.No.54/1, Poochi Athupattu Village, Uthukottai Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she owned property comprised in
S.No.54/1 (Paimash number 108) situated at No.77, Poochi Athipattu Village,
Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District to an extent of 1.20 acres by the virtue of
sale deed dated 13.05.1999 vide document No.964/99 on the file of the Sub
Registrar, Arani. While being so, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Tamil
Nadu Act XXVI/1948) (herein after called as “the Act”) and introduced raywari
settlement in order to abolish the intermediary and to bring the tax collection
under the director control of the Government. Under the Act, the settlement
authorities without any notice to the land holders and without affording any
opportunity of hearing in possession of their respective properties and simply
classified the land situated in the Poochi Athipattu village as Annadheenam.
The term Annadheenam referred to cultivable land and that was not claimed by
the any one during the settlement.
3. Insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, she is in possession
and enjoyment of the same and also mutated all revenue records in her favour.
Unfortunately, her predecessor had failed to make any claim for grant of patta
under the said Act. After knowing the said fact, the petitioner immediately made
a claim before the first respondent by the invoking the provision under Section
5(2) of the Act, as against the wrong classification made by the settlement
authority. She also made representation under Section 11(a) of the Act, with
regard to the aforesaid land, and the same was received by the said authority on
04.08.2015. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 02.02.2016,
rejected her claim for the reason that it cannot be considered, since the claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
was time barred one. Further the first respondent relied upon the G.O.Ms.714,
Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment, dated 21.06.1984 and rejected
the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has
been filed.
4. Heard Mr.S.Gokul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
order dated 17.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2590 to 2595 of 2009
batch in the case of G.Ramachandran & ors Vs. The Additional Chief
Secretary to Government And Director of Survey & Settlements & anr, which
held as follows :-
“10.Now, the crux of the question involved
in these matters is whether there is any time limit
prescribed under any provisions of Act 26 of 1948
for claiming the relief of grant of pattas. The fact
remains that there is no time limit fixed either
under the provision u/s.11[a] of the Act 26 of
1948 or the rules framed there under in
G.O.Ms.No.2043 Revenue dated 05.08.1949. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
perusal of the impugned orders passed by the 1st
respondent 12.01.2009 reveals that the 1st
respondent solely placed reliance on
G.O.Ms.No.714 [Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowments] department dated 29.06.1987 for
holding that the petitioners have not preferred the
appeals within the stipulated period of 30 days
from 22.07.1987, the date on which the said
Government Order came into force for claiming
the issue of pattas.
11.A perusal of the said G.O.Ms.No.714
dated 29.06.1987 makes it crystal clear that the
said order deals in respect of prescription of time
limit for preferring appeals and revisions as per
the amendment made to various rules. It is also
pertinent to note that as far as the cases on hand
are concerned, the petitioners preferred only the
original applications seeking for the relief of
grant of pattas and by no stretch of imagination,
the said applications could be construed to be an
appeal. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to
hold that G.O.ms.No.714 [CT & RE] Department
dated 29.06.1987 is not at all applicable to the
facts of the instant cases and the 1st respondent
has wrongly placed reliance on such Government
Order for setting aside the orders passed in
favour of the petitioners by the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai for granting
the relief of pattas in their favour. It is needless to
state that there is absolutely no statutory rule or
provision available prescribing any time limit for
claiming grant of pattas.
Accordingly, there is no time fixed for under the provisions under Section 11(a)
of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder in G.O.Ms.No.2043 Revenue dated
05.08.1949. Therefore, the above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on
hand.
6. More over, the first respondent by the impugned order rejected the
claim of the petitioner by relaying upon the G.O.Ms.714, Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowment, dated 29.06.1987. But the petitioner has not preferred
any appeal after the lapse of 30 days from 29.06.1987 viz., on the date which the
Government Order came into force for claiming the patta. The said Government
order deals with prescription of time limit for preferring appeals and revisions as
per the amendment made to various rules. Whereas in the present case, the
petitioner made an application claiming patta and as such the Government Order
cited by the first respondent is not applicable to the case on hand. That apart,
there is no statutory rule or provision available for prescribing any time limit for
claiming grant of patta. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it
is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
7. Accordingly, the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the first
respondent in Na.Ka.E1/5298/2015, is hereby set aside. The petitioner's
application is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The
first respondent is also directed to consider the petitioner's application on merits
and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order.
8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
24.08.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10596 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,
Survey House,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600005.
2. The Tahsildar,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
W.P. No.10596 of 2016
and M.P. No.9287 of 2016
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
