Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Panchanatha Achari on 8 February, 2023
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Revenue Officer
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar
Chengalpattu
Kancheepuram District. .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Panchanatha Achari
2.Arulanandam
3.Sundaramani
4.A.Balasundaram
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
5.R.Ramesh
6.M.Basheer Ahamed
7.Sundaramanickam .. Respondents
Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.04.2014 made in W.P.No.4524 of 2006 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Govt. Pleader
For R1 to R4 : Mr. R.Ponnusamy
For R5 and R6 : Mr.P.V.Selvarajan
for Mr.P.S.Venkata Subramanian
For R7 : Mr.R.Elanchezhian
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by V.M.VELUMANI, J.)
The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2014
passed by this Court in W.P.No.4524 of 2006.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed W.P.No.4524 of 2006 challenging the
order of the 2nd appellant dated 21.10.2005, whereby patta granted to the
1st respondent was set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
Case of the respondents 1 to 4:
3.The 1st respondent is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.445 measuring
13.65 acres and 446/1 measuring 2.03 acres, situated at Paiyanur Village,
Chengalpet, he having purchased the same from Ex.Sunampet Zamindar of
the village during 1935. From that date onwards, the 1st respondent is in
continuous possession and is in enjoyment of the said land by cultivating
the same and paying Kist. While so, the lands were classified as
Anaadhenam at the time of settlement by settlement authorities. The
respondents sent a representation dated 21.03.1974 to the 3rd appellant for
grant of patta in respect of lands in question. The Tahsildar, Chengalpet/4th
appellant herein called for objections as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue
Department dated 30.04.1971 and after several enquiries, recommended the
then 3rd appellant/District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, to issue patta in
favour of the 1st respondent herein. The 3rd appellant passed orders granting
patta in the name of 1st respondent by the order dated 25.10.1997 after
survey of the land in question measuring 15.68 acres. During 1998, the 1st
respondent sold a portion of the said lands to the respondents 3 and 4, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
subsequently sold the lands to respondents 5 to 7/appellants 5 to 7 herein, in
the year 2005.
3(a). While so, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 received a show cause
notice from the 2nd appellant stating that he has initiated suo motu
proceedings to cancel the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent by the
3rd appellant. The 2nd appellant informed them that patta is liable to be
cancelled on the following grounds :
i. The 1st respondent Panchanatha Achari submitted an application
for grant of patta outside the scope of the Act only on 03.09.1993,
after a lapse of 15 years and after the time allowed for submission
of such application expired on 30.06.1975;
ii. The SLR copy produced along with the application was issued by
the Collectorate only on 19.05.1988 and the same would falsify
the claim of the 1st respondent that he made application within the
time i.e., on 21.03.1974;
iii. The 1st respondent in his application did not mention that his
request for grant of patta was disallowed by the settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
authorities; and
iv. The 1st respondent admitted that he was a non-resident of Paiyanur
village and not in the possession and enjoyment of the land in
question since the notified date. As he was not in possession and
enjoyment of the lands, he was not entitled to get patta outside the
scope of the Act.
3(b). Challenging the said order of the 2nd appellant, the respondents 1
to 4 filed W.P.No.4524 of 2006. According to the respondents 1 to 4, the
2nd appellant fixed 10.10.2005 for enquiry. The 1st respondent and others
appeared on that date for enquiry and sought time for production of
documents. The 1st respondent also submitted his statement on 12.10.2005.
The 2nd appellant without granting time as sought for by the respondents,
passed the impugned order on 21.10.2005 setting aside the order of the
3rd appellant and cancelled the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent.
3(c). It is further case of the respondents that suo motu proceedings
initiated by the 2nd appellant is barred by limitation as the same had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
initiated after eight years from the date of issue of patta and the 2 nd appellant
has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings. The 1st respondent
made his application on 21.03.1974 i.e., within the time specified in
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. The said
application was forwarded by the 3rd appellant on 07.04.1974 to the
4th appellant for the report. The 4th appellant invited objections from the
public and after enquiry, in his report recommended to the 3rd appellant for
grant of patta to the 1st respondent. This will clearly show that the
application of the 1st respondent is not barred by limitation and it was made
before the cut off date as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated
30.04.1971. The 2nd appellant did not consider the document produced by
the 1st respondent along with his application dated 21.03.1974 i.e., zamin
patta upto 1951, kist receipts and SLR extract to prove his claim regarding
continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands. The 2nd appellant
committed an error in refusing to grant time to the respondents 1, 2 and 4
for producing relevant documents and hurriedly passed an order on
21.10.2005 in the suo motu proceedings. The grounds mentioned in the
order of the 2nd appellant for setting aside the order of the 3rd appellant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
the reason given for cancelling patta are different from the reason given in
the show cause notice. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 were not given
opportunity to put forth their case. The 2nd appellant erred in holding that
the respondents 1, 2 and 4 colluded with the then District Revenue Officer
and manipulated the records for obtaining patta.
Case of the appellants:
4. The 1st respondent applied patta after 15 years of the time granted
in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. The 2nd
appellant initiated suo motu proceedings, which is not barred by limitation,
in view of G.O.Ms.No.1147, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments
Department dated 06.10.1983. As per the said Government Order, no time
limit is fixed by the Government for the 2nd appellant to initiate suo motu
proceedings. The 1st respondent made an application for issuance of patta
only on 03.09.1993, which is beyond time limit fixed by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971, by which time
limit was extended upto 30.06.1975 and subsequently, it was extended upto
31.05.1978. It is the further case of the appellants that the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
was not in continuous possession. The District Revenue Officer Rajamani,
who is a close relative of respondents 2 and 4, in collusion with respondents
1, 2 and 4, issued patta to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the 1st
respondent sold a portion of the land to the respondents 2 and 4.
5. The learned Judge considering the rival submissions, materials
available on record and the file produced by the appellants, allowed the writ
petition quashing the order of the 2nd appellant dated 21.10.2005.
6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.04.2014 made in
W.P.No.4524 of 2006, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants submitted that after ryotwari settlement under Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948) was
completed in Paiyanur Village, Kancheepuram District, in the year 1959, the
lands in S.Nos.445 and 446/1 measuring 15.68 acres was settled as
“Government Anadheenam”. The 1st respondent did not stake any claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
during the currency of settlement for the said lands and after a lapse of 40
years only, he made an application and the District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram, by proceedings dated 25.10.1997 granted patta as per
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. The parties in
possession of the land who failed to make an application before the
settlement officer were given another opportunity to approach the Revenue
authorities to get patta. The time limit fixed in the said Government Order
was extended till 30.06.1975 by G.O.Ms.No.589 Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowments Department dated 14.05.1975. The 1st respondent
did not utilise the opportunity and did not apply for patta within the time.
The learned Judge erred in holding that the 1st respondent made an
application on 21.03.1974, but failed to consider the statement made by the
1st respondent before the 2nd appellant during suo motu enquiry. The 1st
respondent approached the 3rd appellant after 15 years from 30.06.1975 and
the 3rd appellant, without any authority, by order dated 25.10.1997 granted
patta to the 1st respondent to the extent of 15.68 acres. The learned Judge
erred in holding that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the 2nd appellant
after 8 years is time barred. As per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
dated 30.04.1971, the time limit of 60 days is fixed only for the aggrieved
party to file a revision before the 2nd appellant. No time limit is fixed for
initiating suo motu proceedings by the 2nd appellant. The 1st respondent
failed to prove that he made an application for issue of patta on 21.03.1974.
The 1st respondent has produced only xerox copies and has not explained for
not producing office copy. The 1st respondent obtained patta in collusion
with Rajamani, the then DRO and after obtaining patta, sold a portion of the
land to the close relative of Rajamani. There is a contradiction in the names
in the original SLR and the photocopy of the SLR produced by the 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent himself admitted during settlement process,
report of the Tahsildar stating that the land in question is in the occupation
of four persons, whose names were entered in the Adangal Register. The
learned Judge did not consider the fact that the then DRO manipulated the
documents and granted patta on 25.10.1997. The 2nd appellant considering
all the materials, rightly cancelled the patta and prayed for allowing the
appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the
averments made in the affidavit and made submissions in support of the
order of the learned Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the entire materials on record.
10. From the above rival submissions, it is seen that it is the case of
the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants that 1 st
respondent made an application on 03.09.1993 for issuance of patta only
after 15 years time limit fixed by the Government and therefore, the 1st
respondent is not entitled to issue patta in his name. The 1 st respondent
made an application for issuance of patta only on 03.09.1993. During the
hearing before the learned Single Judge, the file relating to issue of patta
was produced. At the time of hearing of this writ appeal also, file is
produced. A perusal of the file shows that the 1st respondent has made an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
application on 21.03.1974 within the cut off date fixed by the Government
Order. The 3rd appellant referred the application to the 4th appellant and
called for a report from the 4th appellant. The 4th appellant invited
objections from the public and after enquiry, recommended for granting
patta to the 1st respondent. Along with the report, the Tahsildar has enclosed
a copy of the publication notice, village account extract and a statement of
the Village Administrative Officer (VAO). The VAO has stated that the 1st
respondent is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. The 1st
respondent has produced documents to show that he is in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the land from the date of purchase i.e., from
the year 1935. He also produced kist receipts to show that he was
cultivating the land from the date of his purchase. The application of the 1st
respondent dated 21.03.1974 is found at page number 109 of the file and
reference of the said application to the 4th appellant is also found in page
number 115 of the file. From the file produced by the appellants, it is clear
that the 1st respondent has made an application for issue of patta on
21.03.1974, within the time limit fixed by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. The 3rd appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
immediately on 07.04.1994 referred the application of the 1st respondent to
the 4th appellant, who after inviting objections and after due enquiry,
recommended for issue of patta.
11. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants that the property in question was in occupation
of four persons and the 1st respondent was not in possession was not
supported by any materials. Even after publication calling for objections if
any for issue of patta to the 1st respondent, nobody has objected for issue of
patta to the 1st respondent. From the statement of the VAO, it is clear that
the 1st respondent was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land.
From the file produced by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants, it is seen that a copy of the application made to
the 1st respondent is available and the acknowledgment card is also
available. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the appellants that the 1st respondent made an
application only after 15 years of cut off date is not acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
12. As far as the allegation made against the then DRO Rajamani is
concerned, vigilance enquiry is only with regard to possession of
disproportionate wealth to the known source of income. There is no
vigilance report that DRO, in collusion with the 1st respondent, issued patta
to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the reason given by the 2nd appellant in
initiating suo motu proceedings, after 8 years of issue of patta is without
merits and is not acceptable. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact
that the 1st respondent gave an application even before Rajamani became the
DRO, Kancheepuram and the then DRO referred the application of the 1 st
respondent to the 4th appellant, Tahsildar, calling for a report. The 1st
respondent was issued patta based on the report of the 4th appellant after
recommending issue of patta after due enquiry and obtaining a report from
the VAO. In view of the above materials, it cannot be said that the
1st respondent, in collusion with the then DRO with the respondents issued
patta without any authority so as to benefit his close relative.
13. From the above materials, it is clear that the learned Single Judge
elaborately considered the materials and by giving cogent and valid reasons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
held that the 1st respondent made an application on 07.04.1974, before the
cut off date fixed in the Government Order and quashed the impugned order
of the 2nd appellant. The appellants have not made out any case for setting
aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
14. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(V.M.V.,J.) (R.H.,J.)
08.02.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
kj/gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
AND
R.HEMALATHA, J.
gya/kj
W.A.No.1489 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
08.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
