A.Ravichandran vs The State
2021 Latest Caselaw 12639 Mad

                                                         W.P.No.10725 of 2018
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

                                  DATED : 29.06.2021

                                        CORAM :

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

                                W.P.No.10725 of 2018
                              and WMP No.12670 of 2018


A.Ravichandran                                                      ...    Petitioner

                                         -Vs-


1.The State
 Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government
 Puduchery.

2. The District Collector,
  Karaikkal District,
  Karaikkal 609 602,
  Puducherry State.

3. The Deputy District Collector and
   Land Reform Officer,
  Karaikkal District,
  Karaikkal 609 602,
  Puducherry State.                                          ...    Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents, their men, agents, servants,
subordinates, officials or anybody acting though or under them from in any manner
interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
situated at Elayankudi Village, Tirunallar Taluk, Karaikkal, Puduchery State, comprised in
survey Nos.15/4 (Part), 15/5 (Part), 7/2, 9, 3, 27/3B, Re-survey Nos. 169/2 pt., 167/2 pt.,
161/1, 161/2, 157/2, 148/1 pt., measuring 10.08.38 Hectares which are covered in the
proceeding in M.R.1/62 of the respondents.


               For Petitioner     :      Mr.L. Chandrakumar
               For Respondents    :      M/s.G.Djearany
                                                                  W.P.No.10725 of 2018
                                        Government Advocate (Pondicherry)


                                       ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing

the Respondents, their men, agents, servants, subordinates, officials or anybody acting

though or under them from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the property situated at Elayankudi Village, Tirunallar Taluk,

Karaikkal, Puduchery State, comprised in survey Nos.15/4 (Part), 15/5 (Part), 7/2, 9, 3,

27/3B, Re-survey Nos. 169/2 pt., 167/2 pt., 161/1, 161/2, 157/2, 148/1 pt., measuring

10.08.38 Hectares which are covered in the proceeding in M.R.1/62 of the respondents.

2. Insofar as the properties as mentioned above situated at Elayankudi Village,

Tirunallar Taluk, Karaikkal, Puducherry State are concerned, those properties have been

subjected to Land Ceiling Proceedings initiated by the respondent Government.

3. However, at the time of issuance of notification, the petitioner was minor and he

became major on 05.10.1974. Therefore, after becoming major on 05.10.1974 alone, he

came to know about the notification declaring the land in question as excess lands.

Therefore, on the ground that the petitioner having become major is entitled for his

holdings and therefore his share of land cannot be included in the total holding of the

joint family, the petitioner's father preferred N.T.C.M.A.No.16 of 1977 before the

Subordinate Court, where, after considering the aforesaid plea made on behalf of the

petitioner, who became major, the said Court by an order dated 02.08.1977 inter-alia has

passed the following directions W.P.No.10725 of 2018

“8. It therefore follows that the holding of the minor son becoming major in between the notified dated the appointed date should be excluded from the total holding of the appellant's family. The authorized officer has completely failed to take note of the ruling of the High Court. The order of the authorized Officer is vitiated to that extent. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this regard. The other objections raised in the grounds of appeal have no merit. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant. The authorized Officer shall exclude the holding of the minor son Ravichandran who had become major on the notified dated and complete the ceiling area of the appellant accordingly. The order of the Authorized Officer in M.R.1/62 dated 7-9-76 is modified to the extent stated above.

9. In the result the appeal is partly allowed with costs Rs.50/- G.P Fee Rs.50/- stay in I.A. 215/77 is vacated. Typed to my dictation, nd

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2 day of August 1977.”

4. As against the said order passed by the Subordinate Court, admittedly there has

been no appeal filed on the side of the respondent State.

5. However, the respondents though belatedly have started acting upon pursuant

to the said order dated 02.08.1977, and in this context, on 10.12.2004 the Settlement

Branch Office of Karaikkal has issued patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the

subject lands and subsequently on 28.11.2017 patta has been issued by the Revenue

Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands. W.P.No.10725 of 2018

6. When that being so, the petitioner came to understand that the respondent

Government had a proposal to utilize the said lands in question, which has already been

released from the clutches of Land Ceiling proceedings by virtue of the order and

judgment referred to above, towards allottment to some landless poor.

7. On coming to know about the said proposal, which according to the petitioner,

reflected in the newspaper, the petitioner has come forward to prefer this writ petition

with the aforesaid prayer.

8. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who

would submit that the proceedings was over as early as on 02.08.1977, where clear

findings have been given by the concerned Court releasing the land in question because

of the fact that, the petitioner has become major and accordingly the Authorised Officer

had been directed to exclude the extent of the land in favour of the petitioner as he has

become major on the date of the notification.

9. He would also submit that, pursuant to the said order passed in the year 1977,

the land in question had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner

and in this regard subsequently in order to complete the process, the Settlement Branch

has also given patta in favour of the petitioner on 10.12.2004 followed by the patta issued

by the Revenue Tahsildar on 28.11.2017. When that being so, all of a sudden now the

respondents are trying to exploit the land in question in the guise of the Land Ceiling

Proceedings which has been concluded by the orders of the Sub Court dated 02.08.1977. W.P.No.10725 of 2018 Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to

issue suitable direction as prayed for herein.

10. However, Ms.G.Djearany, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry)

appearing for the official respondents would submit that, insofar as the grounds under

which the modification was passed and the plea of the petitioner was allowed by the Sub

Court in L.T.C.M.A.No.16 of 1977 dated 02.08.1977 is concerned, that ground has been

clarified in a similar case by the Honourable Supreme Court, where it has been

categorically stated that, any change in the family on account of the minor becoming

major or an unmarried daughter getting married after the appointed date is not required

to be taken into account while calculating the ceiling area of the family.

11. In order to emphasize the said view, the learned Government Counsel relies

upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

“5. In this regard it is submitted that in a similar appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has delivered a judgment in C.A.Nos.135 of 1979, 1625 of 1979 and 4646 of 1994 pertaining to the case of Md. Hussain Vs Govt. of Pondicherry which has given a clarity as to how the calculation has to be done regarding the ceiling area of the family and considering any change in the family on account of minor becoming major or unmarried getting married after the appointed day. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that “any change in the family on account of a minor son attaining majority or an unmarried daughter getting married after appointed day is not required to be W.P.No.10725 of 2018 taken into account while calculating the ceiling area of the family”.

12. By relying upon the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit, the

learned Government Advocate would submit that, since the law has been well settled by

the Honourable Supreme Court and the said judgment applies to the facts of the present

case, certainly the grounds raised by the petitioner and accepted by the Sub Court in the

year 1977 cannot have any legal basis and therefore, on that basis if at all any exclusion

was ordered and had been acted upon by the respondents, that would not ipso facto

confer any right on the petitioner to claim ownership of the property stating that the land

in question has been released from the clutches of the Land Ceiling Proceedings.

Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the present prayer

sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

either side and have perused the materials placed on record.

14. No doubt, as has been stated by the learned Government Advocate, the law

has been declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in a related case. However, insofar

as the petitioner's land is concerned, it has been concluded between the parties ie., the

petitioner's father and the respondent Government in the aforesaid L.T.C.M.A.No.16 of

1977 dated 02.08.1977. The import of the said order passed by the Sub Court, Karaikkal

has already been quoted herein above, whereby the Authorised Officer was directed to

exclude the holding of the minor son who had become major on the notified date and W.P.No.10725 of 2018 complete the ceiling area of the appellant therein ie., the father of the petitioner.

15. The said judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court way back in the year

1977 has become final, as admittedly no further appeal has been filed by the respondent

Government. Moreover, the respondent Government in fact started acting upon pursuant

to the order passed in the year 1977 and accordingly the Settlement Branch of the

Government has issued patta for the said land on 10.12.2004 followed by the revenue

Patta in the year 2017 ie., on 28.11.2017.

16. All these documents issued by the various wings of the respondent

Government would coherently go to show that the judgment dated 02.08.1977 has been

acted upon and that the entire property is in the continuous possession and enjoyment of

the petitioner from the beginning till date without any disturbance and when that being

so, whether the respondents at this juncture ie., after nearly four decades, can seek a

claim to revisit the issue by citing the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is a

question, where this Court feels that, such kind of indulgence cannot be shown at this

juncture to the respondent Government without any basis, as admittedly the order dated

02.08.1977 of the Sub Court, Karaikkal has become final and the findings has been acted

upon decades back.

17. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present attempt if

any, or in future the respondents want to make any inroad into the lands in question for

any other purpose including the assignment of the land to landless poor under the Land

Ceiling Act, the same cannot be accepted.

W.P.No.10725 of 2018

18. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the

following order.

That there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with

the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with regard to the

property in question as stated in the prayer ie., Survey Nos.15/4

(Part), 15/5 (Part), 7/2, 9, 3, 27/3B, Re-survey Nos. 169/2 pt.,

167/2 pt., 161/1, 161/2, 157/2, 148/1 pt., measuring 10.08.38

Hectares situated at Elayankudi Village, Tirunallar Taluk,

Karaikkal, Puducherry, and

That in respect of the said land, it is for the petitioner to exploit the

same in the manner known to law as the lawful owner if he is

otherwise entitled to, without any encumbrance.

19. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.06.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST W.P.No.10725 of 2018

To

1.The Chief Secretary to Government Puduchery.

2. The District Collector, Karaikkal District, Karaikkal 609 602, Puducherry State.

3. The Deputy District Collector and Land Reform Officer, Karaikkal District, Karaikkal 609 602, Puducherry State.

W.P.No.10725 of 2018 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

kst

W.P.No.10725 of 2018

29.06.2021