Madras High Court
Noorjahan vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2023
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B.BALAJI
W.A.No.1122 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2011
and
W.A.No.2041 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010
and
W.P.No.715 of 2010
W.A.No.1122 of 2009
1.Noorjahan
2. S.M.Nayeemunisa
3. S.M.Zubaidunisa
4. Amthul Thawab
5. S.M.Asgari
6. M.Syed Moinuddin
7. M.Syed Jalaluddin
8. Shabir Hussain ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
Page 1 of 35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Special Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
4. The Settlement Officer, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
5. The Chief Engineer, Highways Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
6. Manali R.Srinivasan ... Respondents
In W.A.No.2041 of 2010
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Special Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
4. The Settlement Officer, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
5. The Chief Engineer, Highways Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Appellants
Vs.
Manali R.Srinivasan ... Respondent
W.P.No.715 of 2010
1.Noorjahan
2. S.M.Nayeemunisa
3. S.M.Zubaidunisa
4. Amthul Thawab
5. S.M.Asgari
6. M.Syed Moinuddin
7. M.Syed Jalaluddin
8. Shabir Hussain ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Special Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
4. The Settlement Officer, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
5. The Chief Engineer, Highways Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
6. Manali R.Srinivasan ... Respondents
Prayer in W.A.No.1122 of 2009 and W.A.No.2041 of 2010: Writ Appeals
filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this
Court in W.P.No.12425 of 2008 dated 29.04.2009.
Prayer in W.P.No. 715 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Certioraified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the second respondent dated 20.08.2009 in
ref.I13551/3009 confirming the order of the third respondent dated
04.07.2007 in ref.Na.Ka.E1/6206/2005 and quash the same and further
direct the fourth respondent to issue ryotwari patta to the petitioners for
lands in T.S.No.21, Block No.5 of Venkatapuram Village, Mambalam-
Guindy Taluk, measuring an extent of 4.23 acres.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
In W.A.No.1122 / 2009 and W.P.No.715/2010
For appellants in writ appeal
and petitioners in writ petition : Mr.P.Chandrasekar
For respondents in writ appeal : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
and writ petition Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.T.Arunkumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader
Miss Ag.G.Shakeenaa
Mr.B.Thiyagarajan
for Respondents 1 to 5
No appearance for R6
In W.A.No.2041 of 2010
For Appellants : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.T.Arunkumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader
Miss Ag.G.Shakeenaa
Mr.B.Thiyagarajan
For respondent : No appearance for sole respondent
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
These Intra Court Appeals in W.A.No.1122/2009 and W.A.No.2041/
2017 have been moved before this Court by Mrs. Noorjahan and others and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
also by the Government respectively, challenging the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12425 of 2008 dated 29.04.2009, whereby
the concerned Special Commissioner of Land Administration was directed
to issue patta to Manali R.Srinivasan/writ petitioner for the property situated
in T.S.No.21 in Block No.5 of Venkatapuram Village, Mambalam-Guindy
Taluk, Chennai measuring to an extent of 4.23 acres.
2. The writ petition in W.P.No.715/2010 has been filed to quash the
order passed by the Special Commissioner of Land Administration dated
20.08.2009, and consequently, direct the respondent concerned to issue
ryotwari patta to them for the lands to an extent of 4.23 acres in T.S.No.21,
Block No.5 of Venkatapuram Village.
3. The facts and circumstances of the cases and the issues involved in
the writ appeals and the writ petition are one and the same and hence, this
Court passes the common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking in Writ Appeal No.1122/ 2009.
5. Despite notice has been served to Manali R.Srinivasan, 6th
respondent in W.A.No.1122/2009, none appeared on behalf of him.
6. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal in
W.A.No.1122/2009 and W.P.No.715/2010 are briefly as follow:
The land in T.S.No.21 was originally belonged to Zamindar
Mr.Hussain Ali Sahib and thereafter, G.Saifuddin and Saidunnisa Bi
became the grantees of the land, vide rokka patta issued to them during fasli
1358. The above said G.Saifuddin and Saidunnisa Bi had settled the above
land by way of two settlement deeds dated 03.02.1951 and 09.05.1951 in
favour of two persons viz., Shabir Hussain, the 8th appellant and Syed
Maqdum Moideen, the father of the appellants 2 to 7 and husband of the
first appellant. The above said two settlees executed a registered lease deed
dated 11.05.1951 in favour of one Abdul Sattar Sahib for cultivation of the
land comprised in Paimash No.75/1 and 75/2 measuring an extent of 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
canees and 9 grounds in Venkatapuram Zamin village.
6.1 Earlier, the father of Manali R.Srinivasan viz., Manali
Ramakrishnan had filed a W.P.No.1018/1963 before this Court seeking
direction to the authorities to grant patta for the land in Survey no.21 of
Venkatapuram Village and this Court, vide order dated 10.02.1967 had
remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue for a full and detailed
investigation with regard to the character of the land. Pursuant to the above
said order, the Board of Revenue, Chepauk, vide order dated 31.07.1967,
had remitted the matter to the file of Director of Settlements, Madras for
fresh enquiry, wherein, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu had
considered the matter and pending matter, the settlees, viz. G.Saifuddin and
Syed Makdoom Mohideen had filed a petition to implead them in that
proceedings and it was dismissed. Against which, S.M.Mohideen, settlee
had filed W.No.1010/1969 and it was dismissed, vide order dated
16.02.1961.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
6.2. Subsequently, on behalf of the above settlee viz. Shabbir Hussain
and Syed Mohammed Mohideen, their Power of attorney R.Senguttuvan
had given a representation on 04.12.2003 before the District Collector,
Chennai to issue patta, stating that they are the owners of the land in survey
no.21, part 5, measuring 75 grounds and 1210 sq.ft.
6.3. Further, the sixth respondent/Manali R.Srinivasan had also given
a representation dated 23.12.2003 seeking patta with respect to the land in
S.No.21, Block No.5, measuring to an extent of 4.23 acres in Venkatapuram
Village and it was dismissed by the settlement officer, vide order dated
25.1.2005.
6.4. Again, a petition dated 25.04.2005 given by R. Manali
Srinivasan, s/o Manali Ramakrishnan seeking patta was remanded to the
settlement officer by the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement, vide order dated 19.09.2005. Subsequently, the Special
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk had passed
an order dated 04.07.2007, on the petitions given by i) Senguttuvan, ii)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
Manali R.Srinivasan, iii) Kannapiram, requesting patta with regard to
S.No.21, 4.23 acres of Vnkatapuram Village, holding that the petitions
preferred against the order of the then Board of Revenue cannot be
entertained and hence, it was not considered. Against which they had filed
a revision petition before the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey
and settlement, Chepauk, and to grant ryotwari patta in respect of the land
comprised in T.S.No.21 measuring to an extent of 3 kanis and 13 grounds in
Venkatapuram Village.
6.5. When the revision was pending, the appellants, viz. Noorjahan
and others have also filed the writ appeal No.1122/2009, as against the
orders passed by the writ court in W.P.No.12425/2008 dated 29.04.2009, as
stated supra. Pending writ appeal, the above said revision petition was
dismissed on 20.08.2009. Against which they had filed W.P.No.715/2010 to
quash the above said order and direct the respondent concerned to issue
ryotwari patta to them for the lands to an extent of 4.23 acres in T.S.No.21,
Block No.5 of Venkatapuram Village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
7. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal
No.2041/2010 are as follows.
The predecessors of Manali R.Srinivasan are the owners of above
said disputed property including the lands comprised in S.No.13, 14 of
Block No.4 and S.Nos.20, 22, 23 and 24 of Block No.5 of Venkatapuram
Village. In the year 1951, the Assistant Settlement Officer had granted patta
with regard to S.No.13, 14, 22 and 23; and dropped the action further, with
regard to S.N.24; and had not granted patta in respect of S.No.21, stating
that it was classified as Kuttai, which is a non ryotwari in character, vide
proceedings dated 30.05.1959. According to the writ petitioner, out of 4.23
acres of land in S.No.21, only 9 cents of land was a Kuttai, as per fasli 1827
(year 1918) and fasli 1352 (year 1943). Therefore, the father of the writ
petitioner viz., Manali Ramakrishnan had filed a revision and it was rejected
on 3.10.1959 again the second revision was also rejected on 19.09.1962.
Therefore, he filed W.P.1018/1963 against the order dated 19.09.1962 and
the writ court, by order dated 10.02.1967 had remitted the matter for
reconsideration. Pursuant to the order, stereo type enquiry was conducted
and the Assistant Settlement Officer had rejected the claim on 30.10.1971.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
Again the revision and the second revision were also rejected on 11.01.1973
and 13.06.1975 respectively. Further a revision before the Board of
Revenue was also rejected on 31.12.1975.
7.1. According to the writ petitioner/Manali R.Srinivasan, by taking
into account the Government letter dated 06.06.1977, the Bord of Revenue
had clarified the point under item (iii) that patta may allowed in respect of
lands, which are not really Oorani or tank at present, even though the pre-
settlement account and settlement records may show them as Oorani or tank
promboke, but, the above aspect was not considered in the case of the writ
petitioner. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai (in-charge)
had also in his proceedings dated 30.11.2000, addressed to the Collector of
Madras has stated that the land in S.No.21 has been wrongly classified and
included in the highway department. Further, the Tahsildar, Mambalam-
Guindy Taluk, in the communication dated 31.08.2001 sent to the Collector
of Madras, has stated that while conducting re-survey the land in S.No.21,
it has been wrongly classified as Sarkar promboke and included in the
Highways Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
7.2. After coming to know the above facts, the writ petitioner/ Manali
R.Srinivasan had filed a petition dated 23.12.2003 seeking patta over the
disputed property and the Settlement officer had rejected the same on
25.01.2005. Again he filed a petition dated 25.04.2005 seeking patta and
further filed W.P.No.9445/2006 for direction to dispose his petition,
wherein, direction was given on 05.04.2006 to consider his petition.
Pursuant to the above order, the Settlement officer, considered the petition
dated 25.04.2005 and passed an order on 04.07.2007, by rejecting the
petition. Again, a fresh detailed revision was filed by the petitioner on
20.08.2007 and since it was not considered, he filed W.P.No.37299/2007
and obtained a direction for consideration, vide order dated 20.12.2007.
Pursuant to that order, the Special Commissioner of Land Administration
had passed an order on 09.04.2008, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Challenging the above said order, the writ petitioner had filed
W.P.No.12425/2008 and the writ Court has allowed the writ petition and
directed the official concerned to issue patta in favour of the writ petitioner.
As against the order passed in the above writ petition, the present two
appeal in W.A.No.2041/2010 has been filed the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
W.A.No1122/2009 and petitioners in W.P.715/2010 argued the matter by
reiterating the facts as stated in the affidavits filed in support of the appeal
as well as the writ petition.
9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Government
submitted that, earlier, the predecessors of Noorjahan and others (appellants
in W.A.No.1122/2009) namely S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had
filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2360/1966 seeking to issue patta in favour of
them in respect of the land in T.S.No.21, Block No.5 of Venkatapuram
village and it was dismissed on 10.02.1967 on the ground of inordinate
delay. Thereafter, one Kannapiran, power agent of above said
S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had filed a petition to the Collector,
Chennai for grant of patta over the disputed property, that too after a lapse
of 32 years and again filed a petition to the Government on 18.10.2002
seeking patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
9.1 The learned Advocate General further submitted that
Subsequently, S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had filed a petition to
issue patta in favour of them on 7.11.2003 and it was rejected by the
Government, vide letter dated 14.1.2004, as it was time barred. Again, the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of land administration had
rejected the petition on 19.02.2004 filed by them. Further, Mr.Senguttuan,
the power agent of the above said S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had
filed a petition on 17.01.2005. Thereafter, S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir
Hussain again claimed patta over the disputed property and it was rejected
by the Settlement Officer, vide order dated 04.07.2007. Again, the power
agent of the above S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had filed a petition
petition seeking patta and it was rejected by the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration, vide order dated 24.09.2007, as it
was time barred and also the claim was already rejected by the Government
as well as the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of land
administration. Further, as against the above said order dated 04.07.2007,
one Senguttuvan, power agent of S.M.Mohideen and Shabbir Hussain had
filed revision and it was also rejected by the above Commissioner of land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
administration on 20.08.2009. As against this order, W.P.No.715 of 2010
has been filed. Also, as against the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.12425/2008 dated 29.04.2009, the appellants have also filed
W.A.No.1122/2009. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted
that already the claim of the appellants by way of filing petitions and
revisions were considered by the Government as well as the Settlement
officer and the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, however, by
suppressing the earlier orders with regard to the same property, again and
again the appellants have filed petitions and revisions and hence the claim
of the appellants in W.A.No.1122/2009 is liable to be rejected.
10. The learned Advocate General further submitted that, as regards
to the W.A.No.2041/2010, the disputed land was taken over by the
Government as early as on 03.01.1951 under the Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1958 and considering it as a
was government poromboke land, it was transferred to the Highways
Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.2454 dated 26.08.1959 for the use of
Highways Research Station. Therefore, the claim made by Manali
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
Radhakrishnan and after his demise, his son Manali R.Srinivasan were
rejected by passing appropriate orders in petition, revision and appeals by
the authorities concerned and such order passed by the Board of Revenue
dated 31.12.1975 reached finality. However, after 27 years from the above
date, Manali R.Srinivasan had once again filed petition, revision and writ
petition. Finally, as against the order passed by the Special Commissioner
and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 09.04.2008 he filed
W.P.No.12425/2008, whereby, the learned single judge, without
considering the documents in proper perspective, has allowed the writ
petition. According to the learned Advocate General, Therefore, the order
of the writ court is liable to be set aside.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners and
the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and we have
perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
12. Now, the issues to be decided are that,
i) Whether the appellants in W.A.No.1122/2009 and the petitioners
in W.P.No.715/2010 are entitled for grant of patta in their name with
regard to the disputed property, as prayed for?
ii) Whether the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24537/2013
dated 05.11.2015 has to be quashed or not?
13. Issue No.1.
The appellants viz. Noorjahan and others are not parties to the writ
petition in W.P.No.12425/2008, however, as against the order passed in the
above writ petition, they have filed the present appeal in W.A.No.1122/
2009 on the ground that they are having title right with regard to the
disputed property by way of settlement deeds executed by Syed Maqdum
Mohideen and Shabir Hussain in their favour.
14. A perusal of the records shows that the writ petition in
W.P.No.2360/ 1996 filed by S.M.Mohideen ( Syed Maqdum Mohideen) and
Shabir Hussain, seeking ryotwari patta for the land in T.S.No.21, Block
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
No.5 of Zamin Venkatapuram Village, was dismissed by this court, vide
order dated 10.02.1967 itself on the ground of delay and latches. Though
the prayer for granting Ryotwari patta to the disputed land was dismissed by
this court and the same has become final, by way of filing appeal and writ
petition, the appellants seek the same prayer for granting patta for the
disputed land, which is not maintainable. Further, we have also carefully
gone through the documents filed by the appellants to support their
contentions, wherein, we find no materials to grant patta in their favour for
the disputed property. Therefore, point No.1 is answered against appellants
/Noorjahan and for the same, the writ appeal as well as the writ petition
filed by them are liable to be dismissed.
15. Issue No.2
According to the respondents/ Department, the land in question
Comprised in T.S. No.21, measuring to an extent of 4.23 acres is a
government promboke and was taken over by the Government under the
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwaari) Act 1948
Act on 03.01.1951. Subsequently, as the land was classified as Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
Promboke land, the same was alienated to the Highways Department, as
evidenced by the letter No.2359-A2/56-61 dated 31.07.1957 from the
Highways Research Station to the Collector of Madras. However, since one
Manali Ramakrishnan had claimed the right over the disputed property, suo
moto enquiry under Section 11(A) of the Act 1948 was conducted by the
Assistant Settlement Officer and he has passed an order dated 30.05.1959,
rejecting his claim. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.2454, Revenue (A3)
Department, dated 26.08.1959, the land was transferred from the Revenue
Department to the Highways Department. The appeal filed by Manali
Ramakrishnan, as against the order of settlement officer was also confirmed
by the Director of Settlement, vide order dated 11.03.1960. Against which,
the writ petition in W.P.No.1018/1963 was filed and as per order of this
Court dated 10.02.1967, the matter was remitted back and again, after
making fresh enquiry, the Assistant Settlement officer had disallowed the
claim for granting patta, vide order dated 30.10.1971. Against which, the
revision and the appeal were also ended against him, as per order dated
11.01.1973 and 13.06.1975 respectively. Finally the revision filed by him
was also rejected by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates), vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
order dated 31.12.1975.
16. It is the contention of the respondents/Department that, the said
Manali R.Srinivasan had filed an application seeking patta on 23.12.2003
and it was considered and rejected by the settlement officer on 25.01.2005.
Further, he filed an application on 25.04.2005 seeking patta and it was
forwarded to the Settlement officer. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer
passed an order dated 04.07.2007, rejecting the claim for granting patta. and
the revision dated 20.08.2007 was also rejected by the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, vide order date
09.04.2008. Against which he filed W.P.No.12425/2008 and it was allowed
by this Court on 29.04.2009.
17. It is to be noted that, in an earlier round of litigation, with regard
to the disputed property, the father of Manali R. Srinivasan, namely, Manali
Ramakrishnan had filed application after application; revision after revision;
appeal after appeal; and writ petition after writ petition seeking patta.
Finally, vide order dated 31.12.1975, the claim for granting patta was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
rejected and it has become final.
18. In the second round of litigation, after demise of his father,
Manali R.Srinivasan had filed an application on 23.12.2003, that too after
27 years and it was also rejected, vide order dated 25.01.2005. Again, he
had filed an application, revision, writ petition and appeal. Finally, vide
order dated 09.04.2008, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Land Administration has passed an order, wherein, it was observed thus;
“ 9. The petitioner has also agreed that the suit land was
not under his possession and enjoyment since the land was taken
over by the Government under the provision of Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. The
Tahsildar in his inspection report has stated that the suit land is
surrounded by the compound wall constructed by Highways
Department. Apart from that G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes
and Religious Endowment department dated 29.06.1987 has made
29.07.1987 as the last date to submit application for grant of patta
under the provisions of the Act XXVI of 1948. Besides, there is a
subsisting order of Board of Revenue dated 31.12.1975 in this
issue.
10. Inview of the above discussions, the request of the
petitioner for grant of patta in respect of communal land
inT.S.No.21, Block No.5 of Venkatapuram Village, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
classified as Government Poramboke Highways Department is
hereby rejected.”
19. It is the contention of the sixth respondent/Manali R.Srinivasan
that, the Department had rejected his claim for granting pata solely on the
ground that the disputed land was classified has poromboke, which has not
been supported by any other evidence and further, the Board of Revenue, in
its order dated 31.12.1975 has declared that the disputed land is Kuttai,
based on the wrong entries made in the revenue records. It is his further
contention that his predecessor was granted patta for the lands, including
the disputed land and the settlement officer has also in the earlier
proceedings had accepted his predecessor's title and interest over the
disputed property, however, had rejected the claim, only based on the
character of the land as kuttai and also the claim is barred by limitation.
However, since the disputed land is no longer a poramboke, or a
government land, or a communal land, or a Oorani, or a pond, as per the
admission of the departments, the respondent/ Manali R.Srinivasan is
entitled for granting patta for the disputed property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
20. The above contentions were denied by the Department in the
counter affidavit by stating that there is no classification mistakes as alleged
by the sixth respondent, as the land was legally transferred to the Highways
Department, as per G.O.Ms.No.2454, Revenue dated 26.08.1959 and the
land is in possession of the Highways Department and it is compounded by
the Highways Department. It is further contended by the Department that
prior to the settlement of lands, the lands in T.S.No.24 of the claimant's
predecessors were acquired for Highways Department under Land
Acquisition Act, however, the land in question in T.S.No.21 was being a
pond, considered it as a poramboke land, the Highways Department was
allowed to enter upon the land and it was leveled by the said Department at
its own cost and later, as per G.O.No.2454 dated, 26.08.1959, the land was
transferred to Highway Department. The above contentions were not denied
by the respondent. Therefore, since the land was classified as Kuttai, which
is non Ryotwari in Character, the respondent/ Manali R.Srinivasan is not
entitled to for grant of Ryotwari patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
21. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to mention that, as per
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.04.1971, clarification was issued to
grant patta for the lands, which were taken over under the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The above G.O. is
reproduced as under.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Lands - Lands in Estates
taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Grant of patta to persons in continuous possession and
enjoyment - Orders passed: Revenue Department G.O.Ms.No.1300 Dated
30.4.1971.
1. G.O.Ms.No.1501. Revenue dated 8.7.58.
2. Govt. Memo No.68348/Ji/63-3 Revenue dt. 19.9.1963.
3. G.O.MS.No. 1312. Revenue dt.26.7,67.
4. G.O.Ms.No. 1925. Revenue dt.3.11.67.
5. Govt. Memo N0.41399/JI/68-2. Revenue dt.16.7.68.
6. G.O.MS.No.641, Revenue dt.28.2.70.
In the G.O. first read above, the Government passed orders that landholders
who could not apply of ryotwari patta in time under the Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. 1948 (Tamil Nadu XXVI of
1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but who would have got patta if they
had applied in time, might be granted patta outside the scope of the Act, if
they apply to the Collector of the District concerned. In the Memo, second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
read above, the Government ordered that the vendees from the landholders
might also be treated on the same basis as landholders. Subsequently in 1967,
the Government passed orders in the G.O. third read above that the
concession allowed to the landholders should be executed to the ryots also
and that they should be granted patta outside the scope of the Act on the same
basis as laid down in the first read above. Thus the existing orders Provide for
cases for the grant of patta to the landholders and ryots outside the scope of
the Act in cases:-
(i) Where the landholder or the ryot or the vendee have got patta if
he had applied in time under the Abolition Act but failed to make the
application in time,
(ii) Where the parties case into possession of better documentary
evidence showing better title to grant of patta which were not
available at the time when the applicants were heard by the
appropriate authorities under the Act.
2. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that even the
implementation of the orders referred to above, there are yet a large
number of persons who have been in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the land for years together in estate, taken over under
the Act. Such persons have not been granted patta either because
they did not come under the eligible category for the grant of patta
under the Act or under the orders of the Government referred to
above. It has been represented that it will be a hardship if such
persons who have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
their lands for together are not granted pattas.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
3. The land in respect of which these persons have been in
continuous possession and enjoyment have vest in the Government
absolutely under the Act. The Government after careful
consideration have decided that patta should be granted to such
persons on the basis of such continuous possession and enjoyment of
the land. The Government, therefore direct that such persons may be
granted patta in accordance with the instructions given below:-
(1) Any Person who has been in continuous possession and
enjoyment of any land in the estates taken over under the Act, may
apply for the grant of patta in respect of such land.
(a) to the Revenue Divisional Officers in cases where the extent of
such land does not exceed 5 acres of wet or irrigable dry or 10 acres
of dry lands and
(b) to the District Revenue Officer-Collector in all other cases.
Persons whose claims have been rejected under the Act or under the
orders referred to above, may also apply this order, if such persons
have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.
(2) The Revenue Divisional Officer/District Revenue Officers/
Collector may grant patta of such application after the usual enquiry
and after satisfying himself that the applicant has been in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the land.
(3) The extent of the land for which patta is to be granted either by
himself or together with the lands already held by the applicant shall
not exceed the ceiling limit fixed under the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961, as modified by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on land) Act, 1970.
(4) In cases where there are rival claims for the grant of patta in
respect of the same land, the authority concerned may, in appropriate
cases direct the portion to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court
that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the
lands.
(5) In respect of cases whose land has been classified during
settlement as communal poromboke but on ground, it has been
converted as dry or wet filed and the applicant has been in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, the appropriate
authority may grant patta in respect of such land after following the
prescribed procedure for changing the classification of the land.
(6) Consulalion with the settlement authorities before the grant of
patta will not be necessary unless the Revenue Divisional
Officer/District Revenue Officer/Coilector is of the view that the
matter on such required scrutiny from the settlement point of view.
(7) No market value of the land shall be collected for the grant of
patta under these orders.
(8) Adequate publicity in the village and its neighbourhood shall be
given by the appropriate authority about the proposal to grant patta
under these orders.
(9) The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Collector as the
case may be granted or refusing to grant patta are subject to revision
by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras either suo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
motu or on application to be filed within sixty days of services of the
order. The Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras is
requested to issue suitable instructions for the proper implementation
of these orders to their subordinate authorities.
sd/-
Secretary to Government.
As per the above said Government Order, either the the sixth respondent or
his predecessor had not in continuous possession on the date of issuance of
Government Order and as already stated, the land was transferred to the
Highways Department in the year 1959 itself, as per G.O.Ms.No.2454,
Revenue dated 26.08.1959 and the land is in possession of the Highways
Department and it is compounded by the Highways Department.
22. It is also to be mentioned that earlier, the Settlement Officer has
power to entertain the application for granting ryoatwari patta, by
condoning the delay, which has been filed under Section 11(a) of the Tamil
Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Subsequently, as per the order of the High Court in W.P.No.2232 of 1968
dated 05.01.1970, it was decided that the Settlement Officer has no power to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
entertain the application for condoning the delay. Thereafter, as per the
order of this Court in W.A.No.98 of 1971, rules were amended and
Government had passed G.O.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowment department dated 29.06.1987, granting one month time i.e. on
or before 29.07.1987 to submit application, revision or appeal and beyond
that time, neither the Director of Survey and Settlement nor the
Commissioner of Land Administration has powers to condone the delay for
grant of patta under the provisions of the Act XXVI of 1948. Further, as per
the above G.O., even if the predecessors of the claimant or the claimant has
any rights over the lands, now claimed by him, he should have applied
before the Settlement Authorities on or before 20.08.1987.
23. It is an admitted fact that, after passing order by the Board of
Revenue (Settlement of Estates) dated 31.12.1975, either Manali
Ramakrishnan or his son Manali R.Srinivasan had not filed any application
before the date 20.08.1987 claiming patta, whereas, Manali R.Srinivasan/
sixth respondent had filed an application only on 23.12.2003, after a lapse
of 16 years, which cannot be entertained by the Settlement Officer, as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
claim was barred by limitation. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that
the Writ Court in its judgment has observed as follows
“ though the petitioner had lost precious time,the right to seek the
remedy of revision of the earlier orders which were admittedly
based on wrong entries in the revenue records had arisen only the
in the year 2000-2001 and the petitioner on coming to know about
the same, had submitted his revision in the year 2003. Hence, it
cannot be held that the petitioner is guilty of delay or laches at all.
The petitioner had taken all the best efforts to safeguard his rights
as per law”
However, in reply to the above observation, the Department has stated in the
affidavit filed along with the appeal as follows.
The learned Judge has placed reliance on a proceedings of the
Tahsildar dated 31.08.2000 and followed by the proceedings of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 30.11.2000, in which the
authorities have communicated that “ the S.No.21 had been
wrongly classified as poramboke and that it was not in use of the
Highways Department proves that the S.No.21 is wrongly
classified as poramboke” is a misconception that the said letters
are the reports sent to the Collector of Madras. These report
seems to be perpetrated by those officials to help the said
claimants and the said reports are false and not supported by valid
records. Further, there is no classification mistakes as alleged by
the above officials, as the land was legally transferred to the
highways Department as per G.O.Ms.No.2454, Revenue dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
26.08.1959 and the officials have not enquired the Highways
Department and that the same settlement Officer,
Thanjavur/Assistant Settlement Officer, Truvannamalai (incharge)
in his subsequent report in R.C.No.3567/20001-B1 dated
25.01.2001 has withdraw from his earlier stand and reported that
the owner of the land is not ascertainable that the land in
possession of the Highways Department and it is compounded by
the Highways Department and therefore, the land should have
been alienated to Highways Department as the registry shows that
the land is registered as Government Poramboke Highways
Department”
24. For the above said contentions raised in the affidavit of the
appeal, admittedly, there is no response from the sixth respondent/ Manali
R.Srinivasan and despite service was made, there was no representation on
behalf of him. More over, the sixth respondent/ Manali R.Srinivasan
himself admitted that, he is not in possession of the property and the
documents produced by the Department clearly shows that the disputed land
was already transferred to the Highways Department and it was
compounded by them. Therefore, it is clear that the sixth respondent is not
entitled for Ryatwari patta for the disputed land, as per Section 11 (A) of the
Tamil Nadu Zamindar Estates Abolition and conversion into Ryatwari Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
1948, as it was barred by limitation and also, the earlier decision of the
Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) dated 31.12.1975 reached finality.
Inview of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order passed by
the learned single judge warrants interference and hence, the same is liable
to be set aside.
25. Accordingly, the writ appeal in W.A.No.1122 of 2009 and the
writ petition in W.P.No.715 of 2010 are dismissed. The Writ Appeal in
W.A.No.2041 of 2010 is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.12425/2008 dated 29.04.2009 is set aside. Consequently ,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.B.B.J.)
09.08.2023
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Special Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
4. The Settlement Officer, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
5. The Chief Engineer, Highways Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P. B.BALAJI, J.
mst
W.A.No.1122 of 2009, W.A.No.2041 of 2010
and W.P.No.715 of 2010
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
