Madras High Court

Palanivelrajan vs The Additional Principal ... on 6 December, 2021

                                                                               WP.No.234 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 06.12.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 WP.No.234 of 2021

                     1.Palanivelrajan
                     2.M.Palanikumaran
                     3.M.Muthu
                     4.A.Bhuvaneshwari                                 ...   Petitioners

                                                         Vs

                     1.The Additional Principal Secretary,
                       and Commissioner Land Administration,
                       Survey and Settlement Department,
                       Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
                     2.Director and Commissioner,
                       Survey and Settlement Department,
                       Survey House Chepauk,
                       Chennai 600 005
                     3.The Assistant Settlement Officer(South) Chennai,
                       O/o.Survey and Settlement Department,
                       Survey house Chepauk,
                       Chennai 600 005
                     4.The District Collector,
                       Madurai District, Madurai
                     5.The Tahsildar,
                       Madurai North Taluk,
                       Madurai 625 020                               ...     Respondents



                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     WP.No.234 of 2021

                     Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
                     relating to the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 in reference number
                     Rc.G1/7124/2019 passed by the third respondent by quashing the same and
                     further directing the third respondent to hold fresh enquiry on the petitioners
                     application dated 06.08.2019 for the grant of patta and complete the enquiry
                     within the time stipulated by this Court.
                                  For Petitioners   :   Mr.R.Manickavel


                                  For Respondents    : Mr.V.Jeevagiritharan,
                                                       Additional Government Pleader

                                                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated

23.11.2020 in reference number Rc.G1/7124/2019 passed by the third

respondent by quashing the same and further directing the third respondent

to hold fresh enquiry on the petitioners application dated 06.08.2019 for the

grant of patta and complete the enquiry within the time stipulated by this

Court.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners owned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

property comprised in RS.No.34/2 A1 corresponding to TS.No.73

admeasuring 1 acre 60 cents situated at Thallakulam Village, Madurai by

way of five registered sale deeds dated 23.04.1998 vide document Nos.918,

919, 920, 921 and 922 of 1998 to an extent of 40 cents each. After purchase

of the said property, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the

same and put up construction. All the said constructions assessed to the

property tax by the Corporation of Madurai. After their purchase, the subject

land comprised in survey No.134/2A1 which is co related to TS.No.73 in

ward no.XVI, Block No.36 in the Adangal Register and their names are

registered as persons in possession. However, in the adangal column

referred as 'Puthukulam Kanmai'. According to the petitioners, there is no

such 'puthukulam kanmai' in and around the said area. On enquiry from the

Tahsildar, it is reported that there was an error while UDR scheme or in the

Town Survey. Therefore, the petitioners made representation before the

District Revenue Officer to correct the adangal extract and the same was

forwarded to the fifth respondent and directed the petitioners to make

representation before the third respondent to issue patta. Since it was not

considered and the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

WP.No.16005 of 2019 and by order dated 18.07.2019, the Madurai Bench of

this Court directed the third respondent to complete the enquiry and pass

orders within a period of twelve weeks. However, the third respondent

rejected the representation by the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 quoting

the GO.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment

Department dated 29.06.1987 and the request made by the petitioners is

barred by limitation.

3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Malliga Vs. The

Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chennai in WP.No.10596 of

2016 dated 24.08.2021, the relevant portion of which is extracted

hereunder:

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

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.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 passed by

the third respondent is set aside. The application submitted by the

petitioners is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration.

The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application after

issuing notice to the petitioners and counter parties, if any, and giving them

opportunity of hearing, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with

law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.234 of 2021

order.

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No order

as to costs.

06.12.2021