Madras High Court
R.Kulantaivel vs The Commissioner on 29 October, 2021
W.A.No.3410/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.3410/2019 and CMP.Nos.21939 and 22133/2019
R.Kulantaivel ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhiadigal Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration Department,
Salem-1.
3.Arulmigu Mariamman and Karthirayaswamy
Temple, rep. by its Hereditary Trustee
Rathinammal, Arakhasanahalli Village,
Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the Order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.13460
of 2013 dated 22.10.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.No.3410/2019
For Appellant : Mr.Arun Anbumani
for M/s.A.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
1 and 2 Government Advocate
For 3rd respondent : Mr.V.Srikanth
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the impugned order
passed in W.P.No.13460 of 2013 dated 22.10.2018 by a learned Single
Judge of this Court.
2. Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant heavily contended that when the appellant's family has been
cultivating the land-in-question from the year 1970, the 3rd respondent
has been admittedly receiving the rents, recognizing them as
cultivating tenants. While so, all of a sudden, the father of the
appellant, namely, Rangasamy, passed away in the year 2012.
Thereafter, till 2017, the legal heirs of the late Rangasamy, the
appellant herein along with other legal heirs has been requesting the
then hereditary Trustee, the 3rd respondent herein to accept the rents
and continue to recognize them as cultivating tenants. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3410/2019
amount offered by the appellant, according to the 3rd respondent, was
a small pittance, they refused to receive the same, as a result,
apprehending the eviction at the hands of the respondents, the
appellant has approached the Tahsildar, seeking an order to hold in
his favour that he is a cultivating tenant under the Act. The said
petition is also pending. In the meanwhile, when the appellant has
sent the rents to the Assistant Commissioner that were also returned.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that
taking note of the non-receipt of the rents, now the appellant has been
termed as an encroacher which is not permissible. The reason being
that when it is an admitted case that the appellant's father late
Rangasamy has been continuously paying the rents as a cultivating
tenant, after his death in the year 2012, when the appellant being the
legal heir has come forward to pay the rents continuously as a
cultivating tenant, refusing to accept the rents from the appellant
cannot allow the respondents to call him as an encroacher. This vital
fact has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the
appellant's father was already declared as a cultivating tenant by the
Tahsildar in Tr.No.8/87. Therefore, calling the appellant who is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3410/2019
legal heir of the late Rangasamy as a rank trespasser is unjustifiable
and now the appellant has also moved an application to consider him
as a legal representative of the late Rangasamy and the same is also
pending under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of
Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 57 of
1961).
5. It is, at this stage, learned Government Advocate taking
instructions from his Officer, namely, Mr.A.R.Prakash, Assistant
Commissioner (HR & CE), Dharmapuri, who was also present before
this Court today, submitted that the contention made by the learned
Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been paying the rents
at the rate of Rs.300/- for 10 acres of lands per annum clearly shows
that he is willing to pay the reasonable rent to the entire huge land of
10 acres. He has also clearly stated before us that if the appellant is
coming forward to pay a reasonable rent of Rs.1,000/- per acre till the
Tahsildar decides the status of the legal heirs, no prejudice would be
caused to him and if a decision is arrived at on the status of the legal
heirs as cultivating tenants, then, further action would be taken by the
HR & CE Department to fix the fair rent as per law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3410/2019
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
submitted that when the appellant has not shown any bona fide in
payment of reasonable rent, nothing wrong in ejecting him from the
land-in-question belonging to the 3rd respondent.
7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant requested
us to fix Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1000/- as fair rent per acre.
8. Rejecting the same, we grant four weeks time from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Order to the appellant to pay
Rs.1,000/- per acre from 2017. On compliance of the said direction by
the appellant, since the application filed by the appellant to accept him
as a legal heir of late Rangasamy, who was already considered by the
Tahsildar in Tr.No.8/87 as a cultivating tenant, has been pending for
consideration, we leave it open to the Tahsildar concerned to take up
the matter and decide the same issue on merits and in accordance
with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Pursuant thereto,
once a decision is taken by the Tahsildar, it is open to the appropriate
authority to move the competent authority to decide the fair rent
payable by the appellant. It is made clear that if the appellant has
failed to comply with the direction of this Court stated supra, his Legal
Heir application shall not be considered by the Tahsildar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3410/2019
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
tsi
9. With the above observations and directions, the Writ
Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(T.R.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
29.10.2021
tsi
To
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhiadigal Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration Department,
Salem-1.
W.A.No.3410/2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3410/2019
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
