Madras High Court
The Administrator General And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2023
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.34964, 34968, 32975 and 34959 of 2023
The Administrator General and
Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Additional Deputy Administrator General
and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
High Court, Campus,
Chennai – 600 104. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Cheapuk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Erode Collectorate Building
Erode District – 638 011.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Erode – 638 001. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984, Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/32
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
Department and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.Chandru
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlal, Addl. Advocate General, assisted
by Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Addl.G.P.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the 1 st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.232
dated 18.02.1984 Revenue Department and quash the same.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
● Originally the subject properties belongs to one Palaniappa Chettiar and
his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal in Sathyamangalam Taluk,
Gobichettipalayam, Nambiyur Village, Erode Disrict. Both of them jointly
executed a Will dated 27.09.1968, which enumerated various charities
to be carried out from the income adumbrated from the properties.
● A three member committee was constituted for carrying out the
charitable objectives mentioned under the Will. Mr.Palaniappa Chettiar
died on 05.10.1969 and his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal died on
24.12.1980. Thus, the Will came into existence thereupon, and the
persons claiming to be representatives of Hindu Community in general,
filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1981 on the file fo the District Munsif Court,
Gobichettipalayam, for framing of scheme to manage the Trust
properties and contesting defendants disputed the due execution of joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Will and claimed right upon the suit properties.
● The Court below came to the conclusion that the Trust is not framed
under the Will dated 27.09.1968 and the suit was dismissed, against
which, the aggrieved parties filed appeals in A.S.No.851 of 1989 and
A.S.No.606 of 1989 before this Court. Both the appeals were disposed
by holding that the Will dated 27.09.1968 is a mutual and a joint Will.
Further, it was held that after the death of Palaniappa Chettiar and
Rangammal have no right to alienate the property and all alienations
made thereon were declared as null and void. Consequently, this Court
directed the District Munisf Court, Gobichettipalayam, having
jurisdiction over the matter, permitted to discharge the receiver that it
would be open to receive the amounts.
● This Court further held that it would be open to the Judge to consider
the entrustment of Administration and Management of the Trust to AG &
OT of this Court, as he is functioning under the guidelines of the
Madras High Court.
● Aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, Civil Appeal Nos.5924, 6469
of 2005, etc., were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, vide judgment dated 09.03.2017, had partly allowed the
appeals and held that the Testatrix has absolute right to deal with the
properties mentioned in the Will and alienation made by her during her
lifetime is saved by the Will. The sale deeds in favour of the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therein as null and void were set aside. Further, the sale deeds
mentioned in para 68 of the judgment are deleted from the description
of the property in the plaint. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court
directed the Judicial Officer having jurisdiction over the case to frame
scheme for the Trust within stipulated time.
● Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court , the learned
Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, vide order dated 28.04.2018
made in I.A.No.413 of 2017 framed scheme for the management of the
Trust and constituted a Board consisting of Commissioner, HR & CE,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam and entrusted the
Management of Trust properties to the Administrator General and
Official Trustee (writ petitioner herein). Hence, trust properties vested
with the AG & OT in tune with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. As per the order dated 02.02.1989 in O.S.No.76 of 1981 passed by
the learned Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam, regarding the above said Trust
agricultural land ad-measuring an extent 96.42 Acres of lands, vested with the
AG & OT. Subsequent to it, the respondents had acquired the said lands under
the Land Ceiling Act, 1961, which is not valid under law. The Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred as Act 58
of 1961) was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 02.05.1962.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. As per the said Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres of agriculture land
was fixed as the maximum holding under sub-Clause (1) of Section 18 of the
said Act and surplus land had to be notified as required for public purpose and
on such publication and in view of Section 18 (3) of the Act, the land specified
in the Notification shall be deemed to have been acquired for public purpose
and shall vest in the Government free from any encumbrances.
5. The Acquisitioning Authorities have issued notice under Section 10
(5) and Section 18 of the Act to one Mr.G.K.Perumal, who is no way connected
with the said properties. The State Government published draft Notification
under Section 18 (1) of the Act on 18.02.1984, whereas Rangammal (Land
Owner) died on 24.12.1980 itself. The notice under Sections 10 (5), 11 and 12
of the Act was not served on the land owner and any failure to serve the notice
would be violation of mandatory provisions of the Act as per the decision in the
case of Thirumathi Mnaoranjitham Vs. The Authorised Officer, reported in
(1984) 2 MLJ 474.
6. The State Government has acquired land by publishing draft
Notification under Sections 10 (5) and 18 of the Act issued on 18.02.1984. The
prolonged litigation pertains to management of Trust properties and were
concluded by the judgment and by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
dated 09.03.2017, thereupon the Competent Civil Court has framed scheme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decree for management of Trust properties by the AG & OT and others in
deference to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The civil
litigation emanated for management of Trust properties had taken 40 years.
Even though there is inordinate delay and latches standing in the way of
challenging the Notification of acquisition of land by the Government in the
year 1984.
7. The Courts have repeatedly held that an inordinate delay in filing the
writ petition challenging the Notification of acquisition of land is fatal and would
affect the maintainability of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Lakshmi (1996) 6 SCC 445 held that
“when the Award was passed and possession were taken, the Court should
not have exercised it power to quash the Award which is a material factor to
be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, 1950”. Immediately soon after, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed order and in civil appeals dated 07.03.2017. The Administrator
General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu had issued notice dated
14.11.2018 to the District Collector, Erode to hand over all the lands of the
trust properties of Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities taken by
Land Reforms at the earliest in order to proceed with the charitable activities as
per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The respondents have not till now quashed the acquisition
procedings as per G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984 with regard to the
Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Trust properties. Acquisition proceedings
were initiated by the Tamil Nadu Government with regard to the above
mentioned properties under Act 58 of 1961 as amended by the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. Notification under
Section 18 (1) of the Act, was issued to declare the said properties as surplus
land of Thirumathi Rangammal under publication dated 18.12.1984 in
G.O.Ms.No.232 (Revenue Department). Subsequently, the same has been
published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.90 dated 25.02.1984. The
said properties belong to the Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities
(Trust Property), and therefore, the acquisition proceedings under the Land
Ceiling Act is not valid under Section 20 (iv) which exempts the land of any
Public Charitable or Religious Trust (including “ Wakf ”) and required and
used for any public charity or religious purpose, and therefore, the above said
Notifications are liable to be set aside. The respondents may be directed to
hand over the properties to the writ petitioner.
9. The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2 nd
respondent are that the powers of “Authorised Officer” under the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended and the
powers of “Assigning Authority” under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, was conferred on all the Sub-
Collectors/Revenue Divisional Officers in the State as per the notification
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 04.03.2015 and
05.03.2015 as the said lands alienate in the Revenue Jurisdiction of
Gobichettipalayam Revenue Division. The said Revenue Divisional Officer of
Gobichettipalayam is the Authorised Officer in this case. The writ petition is not
maintainable on account of delay and latches in challenging G.O.Ms.No.232,
dated 18.02.1984. The said G.O was promulgated on 18.02.1984 and the
same is challenged only now and hence the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10. The above said GO was passed after following all the procedures as
contemplated under the said Act and the Rules, which obtained finality and it is
not open to challenge it now. The writ petitioner does not have any locus-
standi in the present writ petition. As per the provisions of the said Act, the
possession was taken and the property was distributed for beneficiaries and
hence, at this stage, the writ petition cannot be maintained. The lands which
are declared as surplus lands, beneficiaries are identified and the lands are
assigned and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land owner. The
lands were assigned as per the rules contained in Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The beneficiaries are in possession
and enjoyment and having title for nearly 30 years and without adding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
beneficiaries as parties to this writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable.
11. All the proceedings in this case would not be valid and binding the
respondent for the reason that the respondents had exercised their sovereign
function given under the Act and declared the properties as surplus land and
the Government became the owner of the land under Section 20 of the Act.
There is no reference to Will dated 20.07.1965 executed by Palaniappa
Chettiar and Rangammal and the above said land owners are aware of the
proceedings initiated under the Act of 1961. The Palaniappa Chettiar and
Rangammal participated in the enquiry in respect of the notice issued under
the said Act and notices were served on them and as per the Will, they cannot
convey the lands which are declared as surplus land under the said Act. Any
act done in contravention of the Act is null and void and not binding on the 2 nd
Respondent. As per Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, it is incumbent on a
person who is holding excess land more than the reforms area, is deemed to
inform the concerned authority about their land hold. In this case, notices were
issued to the land owners and various proceedings under the Act were issued
and hence the writ petitioner does not have any locus-standi, to seek for
quashing of the impugned G.O. As per the Act, under Section 3 (34), a
person inclusive of any private Trust or public Trust and hence even this Trust
holds any land more than any reforms area as defined under Section 5 of the
Land Reforms Act, does not have any right to seek for quashing of the G.O.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The G.O. is binding on the writ petitioner, because the land owner Palaniappa
Chettiar and Rangammal were aware of the proceedings. As per the records
available, the name is not Chinnammal, it is Chinnammal @ Rangammal. The
agricultural land ad-measuring an extent of 96.42 Acres of land, vests with the
AG and OT. The proceedings were commenced against the original land
owners by issuing the notice in Form 4 on 14.02.1974 and hence, the claim of
the AG & OT is not correct. The AG and OT has stepped into the shoes of the
original land owners and the holding of the land owners is held in surplus
under the said Act, and the question of vesting with The Administrator
regarding the lands which are declared as surplus, is not correct. The entire
land is under the purview of the Land Reforms Act, and the notices were
served on Rangammal who also participated in the proceedings and after
initiation of the proceedings and only at the last stage, the said Rangammal
and he also got a Will in his favour. This respondent is not concerned about
the controversy that has been stated about Mr.G.K.Perumal. Since the lands in
excess of the reforms area are fixed under Section 5 and any holding after
15.02.1970, whether it is of individual or Trust, the land which is being held, is
in excess of the reforms area and is deemed to have been vested with the
Government and hence the claim of the writ petitioner is not correct.
12. The land owner herself sent a letter which was received in the office
of the “Authorised Officer” of the Land Reforms, Erode-3 on 31.07.1974
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seeking exemption of Southern land in Kalingiyam Village, Nathipalayam
Village, Nambiyur Village, Lakampatti Village and Veerapandi Village. On the
basis of the request of the land owner alone, issuing of notice under Section 10
(5) arose. The order under Section 10 (5) was issued on 23.04.1974 and at
that time, Rangammal was alive and so the notice under Section 10 (5) was
issued to Mr.G.K.Perumal, which is not correct. Before effecting GO, which is
the culmination of the declaration of the land as surplus, notices were issued
under Section 18(1) at that time, and the 2nd respondent does not know the
veracity of the claim of G.K.Perumal and notices were also issued to him. The
Government Notification under Section 18 (1) in the name of Mr.G.K.Perumal
will not vitiate the entire proceedings, because upto Section 18,
Mrs.Rangammal participated and all her objections were considered and over-
ruled. The notice under Section 18 is only a formality for Gazette publication
and so the claim of the petitioner is not correct. Since the right of the land
owner is declared before the death i.e., on 24.12.1980, the issuance of final
notices under Section 18 is only a formality required under the Act, and it will
not alter the right already decided and hence the claim of the writ petitioner
cannot be sustained. The 2nd respondent is not aware of the credentials of
Mr.G.K.Perumal.
13. Reference to Section 10(2) of the Act cannot be taken, because the
reference under Section 10 was made at the instance of the land owner as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
narrated earlier and there is no lacuna in following the provisions of Section 10
(2). The orders were passed under Section 10 (5) on 23.04.1977 and hence
the claim of the petitioner is not correct. The Will did not come into force on the
death of Rangammal. Ms.Rangammal and she brought the notice of the same
to the 2nd respondent about the existence of the Will. The existence of the Will
will not take away any of the power vested with the respondents under the
Land Reforms Act.
14. The Will will not convey any title to anyone including the writ
petitioner of the land, which was held in excess of the reforms limit as
prescribed under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. The entire proceedings
under the Act were initiated against a dead person, which is absolutely false,
apart from that, being vague and contrary to the records. The writ petitioner
ought to have verified the records being a responsible official before venturing
into making allegations against the 2nd respondent. The writ petitioner cannot
contrary to the Land Reforms Act and making allegations against the
respondent. The surplus land was declared and identified and subsequently
the beneficiaries were identified and the beneficiaries were allotted with Patta
also given to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties
for more than 30 years.
15. It is not open for the writ petitioner to state about the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
paid at this point of time. Even at the time of admission of the writ petition itself,
there was a litigation, which commenced by filing of O.S.No.76 of 1991 and the
same has ended only on 09.03.2017 after the Hon'ble Apex Court declared the
rights of the parties. After the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Subordinate
Court, Gobichettipalayam further framed a scheme on 28.04.2018. After the
death of Ms.Rangammal on 27.11.1980, regarding payment of compensation,
proceedings were initiated as per the Act. Since nobody claimed
compensation, the compensation amount was not distributed to anyone. Since
the land owned is admitted by the petitioner, it does not have any legal heirs
and the scheme of the Trustees only was on 28.04.2018. The question of
paying the compensation to the Trustee, will not arise at all. The writ petitioner
claims that in view of the prolonged litigation of over 40 years, he could not
challenge G.O.Ms.No.232 (Revenue) dated 18.12.1984 and it cannot be
against the 2nd respondent for the reason that the entire proceedings
commenced even during the lifetime of the land owners and the entire
proceedings ended before the lifetime of the land owner Ms.Rangammal and
G.O. came to be passed only on 18.02.1984. The land was declared as
surplus land. As per the Land Reforms Rules, 1965, the surplus lands were
distributed to various beneficiaries and they were in enjoyment of the lands
and hence filing of the writ petition is fatal to the writ petitioner and hence, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. The averment that the properties belonged to Palaniappa Chettiar
and Rangammal Charity, is absolutely false. Such claim may be in
contravention of the Land Reforms Act. The Trust, whether it is private land or
public, cannot hold any land in exercise of the land reforms that has been fixed
under Section 5 of the Act. In view of Section 5, the writ petitioner cannot claim
that the Trust is the owner of the land and as per Section 3(34), a person is
inclusive of a private or public trust. As per Section 20(2), which were held in
violation of the Land Reforms Act, is deemed to have been transferred to the
Government and hence, this writ petitioner is estopped from challenging the
order impugned. The writ petitioner has not sought for any permission under
Section 37(B) of the Act and permission under Section 37 (B) also cannot be
given at this point of time, as the beneficiaries are in possession and
enjoyment of the land.
17. The right to hold the property under Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India is not at all affected and reserves the right under the Land Reforms Act
that was challenged and the validity and sanctity of the Act was upheld in
decision reported in 1971 (2) SCC 893 (Jagannath Vs. Authorised Officer and
others etc.) and the Act was placed under Schedule IX of the Constitution of
India, Entry No.46 and hence the decision relied on by the petitioner reported
in 2007 (10) SCC 448 (Lachhman Dass Vs. Jagat Ram and others) is not
applicable to the cases on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner/AG & OT submitted that the
acquired land measuring an extent of 96.42 acres of lands vested with the A.G.
& O.T. Subsequently, the respondents have acquired the said land under the
Land Ceiling Act, of 1961, which is not valid as per law. He further submitted
that Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal possessed
the properties of more than 96.47 ares including 29000 houses in
Sathyamangalam Taluk, Gobichettipalayam, Nambiyur Village, Erode District.
Both the said Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife jointly executed a Will for
forming a Trust for carrying out the charitable objectives and Mr.Palaniappa
Chettiar died on 05.10.1969 and his wife Rangammal died on 24.12.1980. He
further submitted that the person claiming to be representative of Hindu
community (General) have instituted a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1989 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam for framing of scheme to manage
the Trust property. The Court below came to the conclusion that the Trust is
not framed under the Will and the Will is dated 27.09.1968 and the suit was
dismissed and as against the judgment of the Court below, the First Appeals in
A.S.Nos.1851 of 1989 and 606 of 1989 were filed before this Court.
Subsequently, both the appeals were disposed of by stating that the Will dated
27.09.1968 is a mutual and joint Will. It is further held that after the death of
Palaniappa Chettiar, Rangammal has no right to alienate the property and all
alienations made therein were declared as null and void. Aggrieved by the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment of this Court, the aggrieved party filed Civil Appeals in Civil Appeal
Nos.5924 and 6469 of 2005 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court, by judgment dated 09.03.2017, had partly allowed the appeals by
holding that Rangammal, the testatrix has absolute right to deal with the
properties mentioned in the Will and the alienations made by her during her
life-time are re-conveyed by the Will and the judgment of this Court to that
extent was that the sale in favour of the appellant herein as null and void, was
set aside. Further, the sale deeds mentioned in paragraph 68 of the judgment
are deleted from the description of the property in the plaint. Consequently, the
Supreme Court directed the Judicial Officer having jurisdiction over the case to
frame a Scheme for the Trust within the stipulated time. The order passed by
the first respondent with regard to Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Act in G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984 with regard to the
petitioner's land, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and void and without
jurisdiction. Further, he would submit that the respondents failed to consider
that under the Land Ceiling Act, Section 20(iv), the said properties are
exempted from the land acquisition, since the said properties are Trust
properties. The land acquisition proceedings are initiated against a dead
person, namely Rangammal and the acquisition proceedings are not valid in
the eye of law.
19. Learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that
the said Rangammal, wife of Palanisami Chettiar, Gobichettipalayam, as on
15.02.1970, held an extent of 88.26 ordinary acres of land equivalent to 44.39
standard acres of land, as ascertained from the agricultural income tax
account. She did not file Returns in Form-2 for the lands held by her on
15.02.1970 and hence, the field staff was asked to investigate the extent of
land held by her as on 15.02.1970 and the field staff of the Authorised Officer
(Land Reforms), Erode, had reiterated that the land owner owns the land of an
extent of 95.39 ordinary acres equivalent to 37.101 standard acres in
Malayadipudur, Kugalur, Lakkampatti, Siruvalur, Nathipalaam, Veerapandi,
Kolappalur and Nambiyur villages of the Gobichettipalayam Taluk and the land
owner did not appear for enquiry. The notice dated 14.02.1974 in Form-4 of
the Land Reforms Act, was issued to the land owner for filing of objections, if
any to the holdings returned by the field staff, on or before 26.02.1974 and the
land owner has acknowledged the receipt of Form-4 notice on 20.02.1974. She
had requested time to file her objections and accordingly, time was also
granted by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode. Further, the notices
sent were served for appearance on 14.02.1974, 07.03.1974, 16.03.1974 and
also on 19.03.1974 through RPAD. But she did not appear for the enquiry and
she has not filed any objections to Form-4 notice and it has to be held that she
has accepted the extent furnished by the field staff and that there is no
violation. Hence, under Section 9(2) of the Land Reforms Act, the lands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
described below had been published as total holding of agricultural lands
owned by the above land owner in the proceedings No.89/MRI/Gobi, dated
18.04.1974 or the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms, Erode :-
Sl. Name of the Survey Extent in Ordinary Standard
No. Village Number acres acres Acres
1 Malayadipudur 289B 0.63 4.410
289A 12.60 13.23
288 6.39 3.098
284 6.00 12.39
2 Kugalur 104/2 3.71 10.51 6.006
103 6.80
103 3.40 3.40 1.333
3 Lakkampatti 105/1 2.15
107/B 1.86
10.79 6.166
99/1 3.44
101 3.34
84/B 1.36
84/A 1.20 2.56 0.853
4 Siruvalur 106/3 6.01
166 5.85
53/B 1.67 13.53 3.382
5 Nathipalayam 55, 65, 7.38
70,71
6 Veerapandi 55, 56,68,
67 7.58 14.96 8.548
69, 70, 71
7 Kolappalur 77,78 8.89
8 Nambiyur 292, 293,
299, 298, 5.13 14.02 3.505
Grand Total 95.39 37.101
Acres Acres
20. Later on fresh enquiry process, the following lands owned by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
above land owner had been declared and published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette No.48-C, dated 17.12.1980 as surplus land:
Sl. Name of the Village Survey Number Extent in
No. ordinary acres
1 Malayadipudur 289B 0.63
289H 11.33
288 5.76
284 6.00
2 Lakkampatti 103 3.40
105/1 2.15
84B 1.36
3 Siruvalur 53/B 1.67
4 Veerapani 55,56,58,67,69,72, 7.30
5 Nambiyur 292,293,299,298,3 5.13
6 Kalingiyam 103 6.80
104/2 3.15
Ordinary Acres 54.68
Standard Acres 21.399
21. After adopting due procedures, following lands were declared as
surplus and again amendment of final statement under Section 12 has been
made and Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
No.7-C, dated 22.02.1984 as per G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue Department, dated
18.02.1984:-
Sl. Name of the village Old Survey New Survey Extent in
No. Number Number ordinary
acres
1 Malayadipudur 289B 232/2 0.63
289H 232/2 11.33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl. Name of the village Old Survey New Survey Extent in
No. Number Number ordinary
acres
288 5.76
284 6.00
2 Lakkampatti 103 3.40
105/1 2.15
84/B 1.36
3 Siruvalur 53/B 72 1.67
84/A 1.20
106/3 6.01
166/2 2.23
4 Veerapandi 55 56/C1B 0.79
56 56/A2 2.43
58 56/B1A 0.98
67 68/1A 1.00
69 69/A1 0.34
72 69/A3 0.22
71 67/A 1.54
5 Nambiyur 297 500/22 0.35
298A 500/26 0.35
297 504/11 0.28
297 504/7 0.23
293 533/3 0.94
293 533/6 0.25
304 537/3 1.14
292 534/1 1.10
0.49
299B 499 -------------------
6 Kolappalur 77 230/4 8.69
-------------------
Ordinary acres
64.72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl. Name of the village Old Survey New Survey Extent in
No. Number Number ordinary
acres
Standard acres -------------------
21.310
22. After that, as per the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus
Land) Rules, 1965, the surplus lands have been distributed to various eligible
landless agricultural persons who were after adhering to the necessary
procedures. Further, he would submit that Sri Rangammal who is the wife of
Palaniappa Chettiar held lands of an extent of 95.39 ordinary acres equivalent
to 37.101 standard acres as on 15.02.1970, as the lands held by her were in
excess of the reforms area, but the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the
Act was passed and a copy of the same was also served on the land owner on
21.06.1974 and the land owner filed her objections only on 31.07.1974. As
the land owner preferred her objection petition after expiry of the statutory
period of 30 days, it was not considered The land owner preferred an appeal
before the Land Tribunal, Erode and the Land Tribunal remanded the matter
back for fresh disposal and after considering the objections of the land owner.
Accordingly, several notices dated 14.02.1974, 19.03.1974, 25.04.1974,
09.08.1974, 29.08.1974,13.06.1974, 26.11.1974 and 27.12.1974, were
issued to the land owner, but she did not avail opportunity to appear for the
enquiry. The notice was served on her on 11.07.1974, and as such, the final
statement under Section 12 of the Act was prepared and published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 17.12.1980. The land owner died only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 24.12.1980 and hence, the final statement could not be served on the land
owner.
23. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that one
G.K.Perumal Mudaliar of Gobichettipalayam and his wife Tmt.Rangammal
inherited the property of the deceased land owner as per the Will dated
27.11.1980 and they preferred the Review Petition before the Land
Commissioner, stating that no opportunity of hearing was given to the land
owner to put forth the representation and no order under Section 10(5) of the
Act was passed and they have been deprived of an opportunity to file
objections before the Land Tribunal, Erode against Section 10(5) order and the
same is not correct. The order was passed on 23.04.1974 during the life-time
of the land owner. He further submitted that the revision petition was filed by
Thiru.G.K.Perumal and his wife Ramayee Ammal. The Land Commissioner,
Chennai has passed order in the proceedings in reference No.F2
(S.95/81)(L.Ref), dated 12.11.1981. He further submitted that an extent of 7.30
acres of land comprising in Survey No.1, Veerapandi Village,
Gobichettipalayam Taluk of erstwhile Periyar District and now Erode District,
has been declared as surplus land from the agricultural holding of
Tmt.Rangammal under the Tamil Nadu Land Requirements (Amendment) Act
17 of 1970. In the Notification under Section 18(1) published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette, dated 12.02.1984, as approved in G.O.Ms.No.232,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Revenue Department, dated 18.02.1984:
Sl.No. Land R.S.No. Extent in
Acres
1 55/C1B 0.79
2 56/A2 2.43
3 56/B1A 0.98
4 68/1A 1.00
5 69/A1 0.34
6 69/A3 0.22
7 67/A 1.54
Total 7.30
24. He further submitted that the notice in Form-B inviting the
applications from the eligible persons was issued on 25.02.1984 and got
published in the Village on 26.02.1984 and in response to the said notice, 8
persons have applied for assignment and within the expiry of the time limit of
B-Notice. The above said persons were assigned the land and they are in
possession of the properties and now the assignees are in possession of the
properties for more than 30 years and now the petitioner cannot challenge the
same. They have put up superstructure and improved the land and also they
are enjoying the lands. Since the above said beneficiaries have not been
impleaded in this writ petition, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
25. He would further submit that this Court has ordered to pass fresh
order of assignment within 12 weeks and necessary action has been taken by
the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode. When the action was initiated, it
was found that out of 7.30 acres comprised in S.No.56/A2, 56/C1B, 56-B1A,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
67/A, 68/1A, 69/1A, 69/A3 and an extent of 1.56 acres was on encroachment
by built up houses and fencing was erected and action was taken to assign the
remaining portion of the extent of 15.76 acres after adopting due process of law
and extent of 5.74 acres were conditionally assigned to 12 eligible persons as
listed below in the Form-E, vide proceedings dated 04.04.2012 issued by the
Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Erode. He further submitted that the
AG & OT of Tamil Nadu of this Court, has sent a letter dated 14.11.2018 to
District Collector, Erode and copy of the same was also marked to the
Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and the RDO, Gobichettipalayam. Further,
the sale was executed for the Trust properties with regard to the Trust is clearly
enacted in Section 37-A of the Act. Further, he submitted that the Will dated
27.09.1968 and the paramount intention of the Will was to form educational
institutions and maternity hospital in the name of Palaniappa Chettiar and
Chinnammal (alias) Rangammal Trust. Since the intention of the Will was to
establish the educational institution and maternity hospital, necessary
permission might be obtained from the Government on time. The Trust has not
obtained any permission for the above purpose.
26. He further submitted that in the Will, it was also stated to form a
Committee consisting of the officials maintained to administer the Trust, but no
Committee was formed. Hence, their claim is not maintainable and the Will
dated 27.09.1968 is null and void and the land holdings of the testator were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
above 15 standard acres and the Trust was not a registered Trust and hence,
the above Will will not come under the purview of the Trust.
27. Learned counsel further submitted that the said G.T.Perumal was
appointed as a care-taker as per the Registration document dated 19.12.1980
and he was informed about the action taken by the official concerned. But he
is not entitled to get the lands declared as surplus. Further, the land declared
as surplus land, is not the Trust property and no Trust was formed by the land
owner or her husband and hence, the contention of the petitioner's counsel is
not acceptable. It is not the Trust property and therefore, he prayed to dismiss
the Writ Petition.
28. Learned Additional Advocate General further emphasized that the
land once declared as surplus land and allotted to the beneficiaries as per the
Rules and after 40 years, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for
and he has no locus-standi to file the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
29. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
30. Admittedly, the subject lands originally belonged to one Palaniappa
Chettiar and his wife Chellammal alias Rangammal. Originally, he possessed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the property of an extent of 96.47 acres including 29 houses in
Sathyamangalam Taluk of Gobichettipalayam of various villages. Further, as
per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5924, 6469 of 2005,
etc., dated 09.03.2017, the Will executed by the above said Palanisamy
Chettiar and his wife Chellammal are valid and the Will said to have been
executed by the said Rangammal in favour of G.K.Perumal has been declared
as forged one and it is not valid and that G.K.Perumal is not entitled to any
property stated in the said Will. On a reading of the Will, it clearly shows that
all the properties belong to the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife for the
charitable purpose and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld that the said
Will is a valid document, and therefore, the subsequently directed to form a
Trust for administration and also framed scheme for administration and
thereafter, the properties will be under the control of the A.G.& O.T. (writ
petitioner). Further, though initially proceedings were served on the
Rangammal and according to the learned Additional Advocate General, prior to
the death of Rangammal in the year 1980, all the acquisition proceedings were
completed and also the lands were declared as surplus land, and therefore, the
subsequent proceedings are only formalities and therefore, though the alleged
Will in favour of G.K.Perumal is declared as not valid Will and it is forged one,
but however, based on the said forged Will, they have made a representation
before the authorities and the authorities considered and they have passed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order. But however, once the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the Will in
favour of G.K.Perumal is the forged one and it is not valid and it will not bind
whatever the alienation or encumbrance made by G.K.Perumal in respect of
the property of the Palanisamy Chettiar and Rangammal and the same is not
valid.
31. Now, the question is as to whether the land declared as surplus land
under the Land Reforms Act, is valid or not.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 2 of the Land
Reforms Act, and submitted that the Act does not apply to the land held by the
existing religious institution or charitable Trust of public nature. He submitted
that though both the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife executed a joint and
mutual Will, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also has upheld the said Will stating
that the joint Will executed by both the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife, is
only for religious purpose.
33. Further, though the learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that all the lands/surplus lands declared by the Authorised Officer had not
been covered under the Will, whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has pointed out that all the properties specifically mentioned in the survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
number and the other properties even which are not mentioned in the survey
number also, and in short, all the properties belong to both the Palanisamy
Chettiar and his wife and the income can be only utilized for the religious
purpose even during the life-time, they can maintain and utilise the income
only for the religious purpose and after that, the scheme has to be framed and
Trustee had to be appointed for administration of the Trust. Therefore, once the
property is dedicated for religious purpose and it is a religious Trust, the Land
Reforms Act would not get attracted, and therefore, submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General that the land acquired was declared as 'surplus
land' and the land vested with the Government, and therefore, it is the
sovereign function and the Government can acquire any land and retain it as a
Government land, is not acceptable. As per the Will, it is a religious Trust and
the Will was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court as valid one and
once the property of the said Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife are bequeathed
for the religious purpose, Section 2 of the Act, would not be applicable to the
land in question. Therefore, when once the Act itself is not applicable, the land
declared as surplus land under the Land Ceiling Act is not valid and it is void-
ab-initio. Though out of the major land, surplus land had been declared, even
as per the counter affidavit and the submission of the learned Additional
Advocate General, so far 7.30 acres only were assigned to the beneficiaries
mentioned in the counter affidavit. But out of the extent of lands declared as
surplus land, so far, they have not been allotted to the landless poor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34. Therefore, as already stated, the Act is not applicable to the subject
lands and it is under the control and administration of the writ petitioner/AG &
OT. The land was assigned only for seven persons in total extent of only 7.30
acres and they are in a possession even that also, in the year 2012 only, they
have been assigned the land. As stated by the learned Additional Advocate
General, it is not assigned 40 years before and they are in possession for 40
years before and even assuming that they are not alloted or assigned to the
beneficiaries or the entire surplus land acquired from the said Palanisamy
Chettiar and it is Trust property and therefore, the impugned G.O. is declared
as null and void and also the surplus land acquired by the Government is not
valid and therefore this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to hand over
back the lands in question/surrender the so-called surplus land to the writ
petitioner/AG & OT.
35. Even though the petitioner has not impleaded the beneficiaries,
now the beneficiaries have filed impleading petitions. However, the writ
petitioner has stated that since the Will is executed for charitable purpose and
it is under the control of the writ petitioner/AG & OT and also it is only for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
religious purpose and though the entire land acquired by the Government
under the Land Reforms Act has not been utilised or assigned as per the Land
Reforms Act, and the Distribution of Surplus Land Rules, and however, the
land assigned to the applicants in the impleading petition, can retain their
lands.
36. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and since no adverse order is being passed against the
petitioners in the impleading petition, the impleading petition is dismissed. The
land is to be used only for religious purpose and the Act will not be applicable
and therefore, the land declared as surplus under the Land Reforms Act, is not
valid and the impugned G.O. is set aside.
37. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed. However, in respect of
the land(s) of an extent of 7.30 acres is concerned, which was already allotted
to the beneficiaries, shall not be disturbed and the beneficiaries can retain their
respective allotted lands. In respect of the rest of the lands, the respondents
are directed to surrender and hand over the possession of the lands to the
petitioner within the period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and the petitioner is directed to take over the possession of the rest
of the lands and maintain the same fulfilling the object of the Will. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.34964, 34968 and 34959 of 2023 are closed.
22.12.2023
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nst/cs
To:
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Cheapuk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Erode Collectorate Building
Erode District – 638 011.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Erode – 638 001.
P.VELMURUGAN, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cs
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
