Madras High Court
Zuari Cement Limited vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 August, 2023
2023:MHC:3936
WP No.17814 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29-08-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.17814 of 2021
And
WMP Nos.19016 and 19017 of 2021
Zuari Cement Limited,
S.No.87/1,2,3,90,93/5,112/3,115/9 etc.,
Athipattu Village,
Chennai-600 120,
Represented by its Plant Head,
Mr.Y.Nagendraprasad. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
2.Tahsildar,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
3.Mr.Ulaganathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, after calling for the records from the
first respondent dated nil.07.2021 passed in Na.Ka.No.886/2016/A1 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan,
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Rajmakesh.
For Respondents-1 and 2: Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent-3 : Mr.M.Elumalai
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order passed
by the first respondent in proceedings dated nil.07.2021, directing the
Revenue Authorities to cancel the patta granted in favour of the writ
petitioner-Company and to grant patta in favour of Tmt.Annalakshmi and
Mr.Natesan.
2, The petitioner is a Cement Company purchased certain
extent of lands by way of various Sale Deeds and through Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
leases. The total extent of the Plant is 28 Acres and 85 Cents. The
petitioner-Company states that they are in possession of the subject property
and had mutated the revenue records in their name.
3. The petitioner-Company has established Grinding Unit in the
entire extent, which is under dispute before the respondents 1 and 2, had
been purchased by the petitioner-Company from Mr.S.Durai and others viz.,
Tmt.Nagammal, Tmt.Parvathyammal and Mr.Natesan.
4. During the year 2013, the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan
filed a petition before the second respondent claiming to be the title holder
of the portion of the property under occupation of the petitioner herein. The
second respondent made recommendation stating that the petitioner-
Company has purchased an extent of 0.32 cents excess from one of the
vendor Tmt.Nagammal and accordingly patta to that extent was directed to
be cancelled.
5. In the year 2013, the first respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer sent a notice stating that the petitioner-Company has to attend a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
hearing based on the recommendation passed by the second respondent. The
petitioner-Company attended the hearing and the first respondent asked the
petitioner-Company to file counter to the petition filed by the third
respondent-Mr.Ulaganathan.
6. The petitioner-Company, vide letter dated 06.05.2013
addressed to the first respondent, has requested to furnish certain
documents. Several hearings were conducted and the petitioner-Company's
Representative along with the counsel for the petitioner attended the
hearings. But the copy of the petition filed by the third respondent
Mr.Ulaganathan has not been furnished to the petitioner-Company.
However, the first respondent furnished documents relied on by the third
respondent Mr.Ulaganathan. The petitioner-Company filed a response based
on the orders passed by the second respondent-Tahsildar, but the copy of the
petition filed by the third respondent was not furnished. The petitioner
thereafter filed WP No.23776 of 2016 and this Court directed the first
respondent therein to complete enquiry and pass orders on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
7. The first respondent issued notice of hearing and the
petitioner-Company attended the hearings and the impugned order was
passed cancelling the patta stood in the name of the petitioner-Company.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner mainly contended that the copy of the complaint given by the
third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan to cancel the patta was not even furnished
to the petitioner-Company. The order of the third respondent passed in
proceedings dated 15.04.2016 was not communicated to any person. The
petitioner-Company was put to dark and unable to initiate any further
action. However, in the year 2017, the first respondent has sent a
communication to the second respondent and the Head Surveyor, Ponneri,
directed the second respondent to furnish certain details with regard to
Survey Field No.95. An action was subsequently taken through Assistant
Director of Land Survey Department, Thiruvallur to survey the land and
submit a report in a time bound manner. The said proceeding was sent to the
petitioner-Company. An Officer who heard the submissions of the
petitioner-Company one Mr.V.Muthusamy had not passed orders. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
impugned order has been passed by one Mr.P.Selvam, Revenue Divisional
Officer. The impugned order dated nil.07.2021, which was signed on
16.07.2021, was passed by one Mr.P.Selvam, Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri, who had not heard the matter during the hearing of the case.
Mr.P.Selvam, the new incumbent to the office of the first respondent, has
confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that
the Officer, who heard the petition, is not the Officer who passed the
impugned order. The petitioner was not afforded with fair hearing and the
copy of the petition given by the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan has not
been furnished to the petitioner-Company. Thus the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
10. On behalf of the petitioner, the order passed in
M/s.GMMCO Limited vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [2011 SCC
OnLine Mad 2499], was relied upon. The learned Single Judge of this
Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram conducted after
giving notice to the petitioner and submitted a report stating his inability to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
pass orders. Since the successor Revenue Divisional Officer without
conducting any enquiry passed an order, which is in violation of the
principle that “a person hears must decide”. Thus on the basis of the said
principle, the present writ petition is to be considered.
11. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the High
Court of Kerala in the case of Union of India vs. E.K.Andrew in Writ
Appeal No.906 of 1992 dated 05.01.1996. The principle has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gullapalli
Nageswara Rao and Others vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation and Others [AIR 1959 SC 308].
12. Relying on the above judgments, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who heard the matter, has not passed the order
and his successor passed the orders and on that ground also, the impugned
order is to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
13. The third respondent disputed the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioner. The third respondent has stated that the lands
comprised in (1) Survey No.95/2C, which was subsequently sub-divided as
Survey No.95/2C1 measuring 0.51 Acres, (2) Survey No.95/2C2 measuring
0.68 Acres and (3) Survey No.95/2C3 measuring 1 Acre 22 Cents situated
in Athipattu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District belonged to the
family of the third respondent herein. As there was dispute among the
family members in apportioning the lands, a suit in OS No.717 of 1992 was
filed before the Sub Court, Ponneri, which culminated in filing AS No.21 of
2021 before the Appellate Court and ultimately in Second Appeal No.1208
of 2003 as well as Cross-Objection AS No.20 of 2004 filed before this
Court, a Compromise Decree was passed on the basis of the compromise
entered into between the parties to the Second Appeal.
14. In the year 1992, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as
requisitioning body, sought for acquiring the land comprised in Survey
No.95/2C2 measuring 68 Acres for the purpose of establishing Electricity
Generation Centre and for formation of a Railway Road for transporting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
coal and accessories leading to the Centre. Accordingly, the land in Survey
No.95/2C2 was acquired and compensation was paid to us by the District
Munsif Court at Ponneri.
15. Subsequently, in the year 1996, Indian Oil Corporation has
acquired the land in Survey No.95/2C3 measuring 1 Acre 22 Cents for the
purpose of setting up Bottling Plant and Award Nos.3 and 4 of 1996 was
passed and the compensation amount was determined and paid to us by the
Corporation for having acquired the land.
16. As far as the disputed land is concerned, namely, the land
in Survey No.95/2C1 measuring 51 Acres, it was purchased by Zuari
Cement Limited for the purpose of establishing a Grinding Unit not from
the petitioner or his family members but from one Mrs.Nagammal, who has
no title to the said land. The family members of the third respondent were
the real owner of the land in Survey No.95/2C1. In fact, this land in Survey
No.95/2C1 is also part of the Compromise Decree passed by this Court in
Second Appeal. However, one Mrs.Nagammal, wife of Mr.Chellakutti had
executed a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney in favour of one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
Mr.P.Babu Reddy to deal with the aforesaid property and on the basis of the
same, the land in Survey No.95/2C1 belonged to the family of the third
respondent was acquired by Zuari Cements Limited. It also came to light
that Mr.P.Babu Reddy had executed a Deed of Conveyance registered as
Document No.5049 of 2006 dated 09.08.2016 on the file of Sub Registrar,
Thiruvottriyur and thereby valuable property belonged to the family of the
third respondent was taken over by Zuari Cement Limited for which
compensation was paid to the abovesaid Mr.P.Babu Reddy, Power Agent of
Mrs.Nagammal.
17. On coming to know the acquisition of land belonged to the
family of the third respondent and the compensation paid to Mrs.Nagammal,
they preferred a complaint to the General Manager of Zuari Cements
Limited stating that their family members are the real owners of the land in
Survey No.95/2C1 and compensation has to be paid to them. However, the
General Manager of Zuari Cements Limited has not taken any action
thereof. Therefore, a complaint was given to the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk
specifically complaining that patta in respect of land in Survey No.95/2C1
was transferred in favour of Zuari Cement Limited, who has got no right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
over the said land. The Tahsildar, Ponneri, upon arriving at a subjective
satisfaction as regards forgery and fabrication of documents, forwarded the
matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri with his recommendation
to cancel the patta. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri conducted an
enquiry in which the family members of the third respondent as well as the
representatives of the petitioner were participated. The Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ponneri upon considering the forgery and fabrication of documents,
cancelled the patta issued in favour of Zuari Cement Limited and directed to
issue patta in favour of the third respondent.
18. In spite of the above, M/s.Zuari Cements Limited is
claiming a right over the land based on the Deed of Conveyance dated
09.08.2006 registered as Document No.5049 of 2006 on the file of Sub
Registrar, Thiruvottriyur registered in their favour. In other words, the
encumbrance in respect of the disputed property reflects the name of Zuari
Cements Limited after the registration of the focus and fabricated document
in the year 2006 without verifying any revenue records and encumbrance
certificate. For having acquire the disputed property, they have not received
any compensation till date. Thus, the conveyance of the property in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
of M/s.Zuari Cements Limited is not proper and the person who conveyed
the property has no conveyable right over the said property.
19. The learned counsel for the third respondent mainly
contended that the petitioner-Company has not challenged the Compromise
Decree passed in SA No.1208 of 2003 passed by this Court. The
Compromise Decree covers the land in Survey No.95/2C1 as well. When
the Compromise Decree among the family members was in existence, the
alienation of the same property in favour of the petitioner-Company by
some third persons, who has no title, will not bind the third respondent in
any manner. The first respondent conducted an elaborate enquiry, perused
documentary evidence, heard the representatives of the petitioner-Company
as well as the third respondent and thereafter cancelled the patta stood in the
name of the petitioner-Company and to grant patta in favour of the third
respondent.
20. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, mainly contended that sufficient
opportunity was granted to the parties. Several hearings were conducted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
the Revenue Divisional Officer. The copy of the recommendation by the
Tahsildar was furnished to the petitioner, the counsel appeared on behalf of
the petitioner along with the representative of the petitioner-Company.
When the petitioner-Company participated in the enquiry, submitted their
defence statements, they cannot now turn around and claim that no
opportunity was granted to them. Even in case, if the petitioner-Company is
aggrieved, by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, the
order itself stipulates about the right of appeal before the District Revenue
Officer, Thiruvallur. The petitioner-Company has not chosen to prefer an
appeal as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition
itself is not maintainable.
21. The principles of natural justice cannot be an empty
formality. Even presuming that the copy of the application submitted by the
third respondent to cancel the patta was not furnished to the petitioner, the
Court has to consider whether such non-production of application caused
prejudice to the petitioner-Company for the purpose of defending their case.
Mechanical approach, in this regard, would cause prejudice to either of the
parties. Remanding the matter would do no service to the cause of justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
The litigants will come back again to the High Court by filing another writ
petition. The petitioner-Company has failed to file any appeal as
contemplated under the Act, which was clearly stated in the order impugned
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
22. The application submitted by the third respondent was
entertained by the Tahsildar, who in turn verified the revenue records and
made a recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting
an enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry by
affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.
23. The issue dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer
was, whether patta granted in favour of the petitioner-Company is to be
cancelled or not ?. When patta was originally granted in the name of the
petitioner-Company based on the Sale Deed executed in their favour and
thereafter, the third respondent filed complaint stating that an excess portion
of the land has been sold in a fraudulent manner in favour of the petitioner-
Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
24. The third respondent conducted an enquiry by furnishing
the copy of the report of the Tahsildar and all other documents relied on by
the third respondent-complainant.
25. Mere non-production of the application submitted by the
third respondent, no doubt, had not caused any prejudice to the writ
petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company was aware of the entire issues
as well as the facts and furnished their documents and more-so, the
documents relied on by the third respondent to establish their title was also
furnished to the petitioner-Company represented by its counsel. Therefore,
the said ground deserves no merit consideration.
26. As far as the other ground that the successor Revenue
Divisional Officer passed the impugned order is concerned, the enquiry was
in progress for several years. The third respondent had given a complaint
long back, which was recommended by the Tahsildar.
27. The Compromise Decree in SA No.1208 of 2003 was
passed on 13.04.2010. The second respondent passed an order in February
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
2013 and the first respondent on the first occasion passed an order on
15.04.2016 and thereafter, this Court passed an order on 12.07.2016 in WP
No.23776 of 2016, directing the first respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner submitted on 26.05.2016 on merits and in
accordance with law.
28. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on
12.07.2016, enquiry proceedings commenced. Though this Court fixed
statutory time limit of six weeks, the petitioner represented by the counsel
also took time during the enquiry proceedings. On several dates enquiry was
conducted and the petitioner represented by their counsel participated in the
hearings, and furnished their defence statements. That being the factum, the
successor Revenue Divisional Officer passing orders, cannot be a ground to
vitiate the entire order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is
quasi judicial in nature. When the proceedings are pending for several years
and the Government Officials are being transferred periodically, one cannot
expect the same Officer, who heard the matter, at the initial stage will pass
final orders. The only point to be considered is, whether the Authority, who
passed the impugned order, has considered the issues raised between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
parties and passed a speaking order or not ?. Even if the issues raised
between the parties are concerned, based on the documents and evidences
available on record, such ground raised by the petitioner that the Officer,
who heard, not passed the orders, cannot be entertained.
29. In the present case, the petitioner has not clearly stated
when the enquiry proceedings were completed and on what date
Mr.P.Selvam, Revenue Divisional Officer assumed the charge. In the
absence of all such clear details, this Court cannot form an opinion that the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the order, had not gone through the
files.
30. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Revenue
Divisional Officer considered the issues raised between the parties. The
main ground considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancelling
patta granted in the name of the petitioner-Company is that Smt.Nagammal
had not purchased the portion of the land measuring 0.35 cents from
Tmt.Parvathyammal. Verification of the document revealed that the said
Tmt.Nagammal, who had not purchased the portion of the property from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
Smt.Parvathyamml, had sold the said portion in favour of the petitioner-
Cement Company. As per the document, 0.35 cents of land has been sold in
excess by Smt.Nagammal for which she had no detail.
31. In this regard, the learned counsel for the third respondent
has stated that there was some fraudulent activities took place through one
Mr.P.Babu Reddy, who had executed the Deed of Conveyance. The said
Mr.P.Babu Reddy was the Power of Attorney and Tmt.Nagamal, wife of
Mr.Chellakutti had executed forged and fabricated Power of Attorney in
favour fo Mr.P.Babu Reddy to deal with the subject properties.
32. The documents were verified by the Revenue Authorities
and they found excess land has been fraudulently transferred. Thus, the
petition filed by the third respondent was allowed and consequently the
patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled through the
impugned order.
33. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity
in respect of the findings made by the first respondent in the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
order dated nil.07.2021. Consequently, the present writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
29-08-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
To
1.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
2.Tahsildar,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.17814 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 17814 of 2021
29-08-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
