Madras High Court
C.Selvin Prabhu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 October, 2023
2023/MHC/4666
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
S.V.S.Natarajan (Died)
Managing Director
Tuticorin Sea Food (P) Ltd.,
71/1, Toovipuram Main Road
Thoothukudi-628 003
1.C.Selvin Prabhu
Director
Nila Mines (P) Ltd.,
137, Pudurpandiapuram
Thoothukudi-628 002 ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
(Land Reforms)
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
2.Authorized Officer /
Assistant Commissioner
Land Reforms
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
[Cause title accepted vide order dated
24.04.2019 in C.M.P.(MD) No.4113 of 2019]
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 28.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.5336 of 2008, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 28.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.5336 of 2008.
2. The appellant – Company had purchased around 95.95
Ordinary Acres of land at Vembar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi
District, between the period from 1992 to 1994. It had proposed to start a
prawn culture farm over the said land. Since the Supreme Court had banned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
prawn culture, the appellant abandoned that idea and wanted to start salt
pans over the same. On this basis, it applied for exemption. Subsequently, it
decided to convert the land into a cashew plantation. But, the cashew plants
withered away. Therefore, the appellant decided to restore the land for
growing firewood trees. On that basis, it applied for exemption under the
Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter,
referred as “the Act”). The exemption was refused since under Section 73(viii)
of the Act, firewood trees should have been on the land on the date of
commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 06.04.1960 and
admittedly, on that date, the appellant was neither the owner of the land nor
evidence was given that there were firewood trees over the land for which
exemption sought for.
3. Taking into consideration the changing of stands by the
appellant from prawn culture to salt pan to cashew plantation and finally
growing firewood trees, the Government decided to reject the application for
exemption and held that the appellant is entitled only to 60.00 Standard Acres
of land and declared the remaining 35.95 Ordinary Acres of land as surplus.
This order was passed by the second respondent on 03.09.2003. Challenging
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
the same, the writ petition was filed on 30.04.2008, which came to be
dismissed on 28.06.2016.
4. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would argue that the order of the second respondent is vitiated as it
is contrary to Order XX Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short,
“C.P.C.”) as it did not state to which appellate authority appeal lies. We are
afraid this submission is one in vain, because the Authorized Officer is not the
Civil Court within the meaning of C.P.C.
5. Facing the above difficulty, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned
counsel, would argue that we have to apply Section 5 of C.P.C. Section 5 of
C.P.C., applies to Revenue Courts and not to the authorities under the Land
Reforms Act. As to which Courts are covered as Revenue Courts is given
under Section 5(2) of C.P.C. A Revenue Court for the purpose of Section 5(1)
should be the Court, empowered by a local law, to entertain suits or other
proceedings relating to rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural
purposes. An Authorized Officer under the Land Reforms Act does not deal
with rent or revenue or profits relating to agricultural purposes. He deals with
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
the basic issue as to whether the holdings of the person to whom notices have
been issued under the Land Reforms Act, are in excess or within the permitted
limits. Apart from that, he is not a Court created under a statute. Therefore,
the argument that Section 5 of C.P.C will apply to an Authorized Officer, has
to necessary fail. The issue as to which Revenue Court fall within the gamut
of Section 5(2) of C.P.C had been elaborately dealt with in the case of Bijai
Narain Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1970 All 241
(FB). We respectfully adopt the approach of that Court set forth in paragraph
nos.33 and 34 of the said order.
6. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai would then turn to Rule 11 of the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter,
referred as “the Rules”) and state that it has clothed the authorized officer with
the power of the Civil Court and therefore, C.P.C., would apply to the
authorized officer. A careful reading of Rule 11 of the Rules shows that the
authorized officer has been clothed with certain power available to Civil Courts
for the purpose of determining the issues that are raised before him. That
does not convert an authorized officer into a Civil Court to be covered by all
the provisions of C.P.C.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
7. We have taken notice of the fact that the order impugned in the
writ petition was passed in the year 2003, but the writ petition itself came to
be filed only in the year 2008. There is absolutely no explanation for the
period of five years as to why the appellant did not file an appeal before the
land tribunal as against the said order. This raises a doubt as to whether the
appellant wants to convert the writ petition into an appellate remedy.
8. Apart from the aspect of laches, even on the merits of the case,
the appellant has been consistently changing its stand from one project to
another to somehow or the other to extricate the lands from the provisions of
the Land Reforms Act, which in itself is a measure to achieve agricultural
equality on land holding, an avowed object of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
9. Apart from all these, the power to grant exemption lies only
with the Government. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is only to see whether the Government has applied its mind to the facts
of the case and has come to a proper conclusion. The jurisdiction under
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is visitorial or supervisory. We are
concerned only with the decision making process and not with the decision
itself. On the decision making process, we do not find any error and therefore,
we are not in a position to concur with the arguments of Mr.G.Prabhu
Rajadurai.
10. In fine, this writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.5336 of 2008,
stands confirmed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]
09.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk / lm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
(Land Reforms),
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Authorized Officer /
Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Tirunelveli.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk / lm
W.A.(MD) No.657 of 2019
09.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
