Madras High Court
R.Rajaveni (Died) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2023
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.30618, 30619, 30621of 2019 & 10656 of 2020
1.R.Rajaveni (Died)
2.R.Gengusamy
3.R.Gunasekaran ... Petitioners
[P2 and P3 (already in record) are substituted as legal
heirs of the 1st petitioner by order dated 05.09.2023 in
WMP.No.7278/2021 in WP.No.30567/2019]
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Deputy Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary & Commissioner
of Land Reforms,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udumalpet,
Tiruppur District.
5.The Thasildar,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
6.G.Dasamuthu
7.V.Jothimani
8.P.Jeevarathinam
9.T.Sankaranarayanan
10.V.Ranganathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned Notification in the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue Department, dated 14.10.1974 issued by the 1st
Respondent and the subsequent impugned proceedings in
Na.ka.No.282/2018/A2 dated 26.09.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent and
to quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to
restore the names of the Petitioners in the Revenue Records including Patta,
Chitta, Adangal etc., in respect of the land in S.Nos.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
Ponneri Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District to an extent of 16.86
acres.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.C.Jaya Prakash
Government Advocate
For R6 : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Raj Makesh
For R7 to R10 : No Appearance
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the impugned
notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue
Department, dated 14.10.1974 issued by the 1st Respondent and subsequent
impugned proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent in proceedings dated
26.09.2019 and to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to restore the names of the
petitioners in revenue records including Patta, Chitta, Adangal etc., in
respect of the land in S.Nos.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2 Ponneri Village,
Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District to an extent of 16.86 acres.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
PETITIONER’S CASE:
2. The 1st petitioner is wife of the Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy Naicker
and mother of the petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners state that they are the
owners of the land at property comprised in S.No.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2
Ponneri Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Trippur District to an extent of 16.86
acres.
3. The petitioners state that the subject property originally belonged
to Thiru.Jangama Naidu. The said Jangama Naidu had executed a settlement
deed in favour of Late Thiru. G.Ramasamy Naicker in Document No.344 of
1959 dated 18.02.1959 on condition that the property will remain as “Life
Estate” to G.Ramasamy Naicker and after his demise, the property will be
passed on to his legal heirs and in the absence of any legal heirs, the
property will be returned to the executants or their legal heirs. Thus, it was a
conditional settlement made in favour of Late Thiru. G.Ramasamy Niacker.
He will be the limited owner only to enjoy the property till his life time and
thereafter it will be transferred to his legal heirs. There was no right of
alienation conferred on the said G.Ramasamy Naicker.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
4. The petitioners state that they are the legal heirs of Late Thiru
G.Ramasamy Naicker and descended his property after his demise on
13.08.2005. Thus, the petitioners have become the absolute owners of the
subject property.
5. The petitioners found that the name of the Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy
Naicker had been deleted from the revenue records and the names of many
other individuals have been entered including the patta during Updating
Registry Scheme (UDR). The petitioners submitted representation to the
Tahsildar, Udumalpet Taluk for restoration of patta in their names. The
Tahsildar, Udumalpet conducted an enquiry and conducted field inspection.
The Tahsildar included the names of the petitioners in the patta along with
other persons in the year 2017. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know
that the patta have been granted to many individuals in respect of the subject
property and it was declared as surplus under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
6. The petitioners state that no notice or proceedings were
communicated to Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy Naicker, the husband of the 1st
petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 and 3. Possession has not been
taken and Late G.Ramasamy Naicker was in enjoyment. Thus, the subject
property remains as 'Life Estate' of the G.Ramasamy Naicker as per the
settlement deed dated 18.02.1959. Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy Naicker was
alive till 2005 and the said land therefore cannot be declared as a surplus
land by operation of law. The individual patta holders started giving trouble
to the petitioners and made false complaints to the Police. The said
complaints were closed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.S.No.426 of 2017
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet seeking permanent
injunction. The names of the petitioners were deleted from the joint patta
granted by the Tahsildar in the year 2017 and thereafter, the petitioners filed
an appeal on 19.12.2017 seeking for restoration of patta. The petitioners
filed W.P.No.33744 of 2017 and this Court passed an order directing the
Appellate Authority to consider the same. The petitioners have submitted an
appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms on 25.08.2017. The 2nd
respondent issued orders on 28.03.2018 directing the Tahsildar, Udumalpet
to initiate appropriate actions to permit the joint pattadhars to enter into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
subject land with the assistance of the Police. Since the said order was
passed during the pendency of the civil suit and an appeal was preferred by
the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.8946
of 2018. An interim stay was granted. This Court passed final orders on
28.02.2019 remanding the matter back to the 4th respondent for passing
orders on merits and in accordance with law.
7. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.8946 of 2018, the
4th respondent conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order dated
26.09.2019 stating that the subject land had been declared as surplus land in
G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue Department dated 14.10.1974 under Section
18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961 and conditional patta had been granted in favour of the individuals.
Therefore, the names of the petitioners have been subsequently deleted from
the computer patta.
8. The petitioners further state that they came to know about the
Government order of the year 1974, only at the time of preferring an appeal.
The petitioners secured the copy of the notification issued in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
G.O.Ms.No.3594 dated 14.10.1974 under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioners contended that no notice or opportunity was given to the Late
G.Ramasamy Naicker under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The original owner was
in possession of the property. It is mainly contended that the Government
order issued in G.O.Ms.No.3594 dated 14.10.1974 was not Gazatted as
required under the provisions of the Act. In other words, no Gazette
Notification was published as mandated under the provisions of the Act and
therefore, the entire declaration made under Section 18(1) of the Act is null
and void and cannot be operated against the original owner of the subject
property.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended
that Late G.Ramasamy Naicker was not conferred with the power of
alienation by the settlee of the property G.Jangama Naidu. The deed of
settlement confers powers to Late G.Ramasamy Naicker only as a “Life
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
Estate” and therefore, he was not the owner of the subject property. When
Late G.Ramasamy Naicker was not holding any title or ownership,
declaration made in his name is improper and in violation of the provisions
of the Act. He possessed life interest in respect of the property and no notice
was issued to him. That being the factum the impugned order of the year
1974 is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that
information was provided by the Public Information Officer under RTI Act
in proceedings dated 18.09.2019 to the 3rd petitioner. The respondents have
communicated the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue
Department dated 14.10.1974 and further stated that the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette Notification was issued. Further, the respondents have
not produced any such documents or evidence before this Court to establish
that the Gazette Notification was made. In the absence of any proof to show
that the Government Notification was issued, the land vests with the
original owner and therefore, the declaration issued under Section 18(1) is
untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention
of this Court regarding the notification issued under Section 18(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 in
G.O.Ms.No.3495, Revenue Department dated 04.10.1974. It was a draft
notification and actual Gazette publication was not made.
13. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Mysore Vs. Abdul Razak
Sahib reported in (1973) 3 SCC 196, wherein, the Apex Court made the
following observations:
“5. This very question came up for
consideration before the High Court of Mysore in
Gangadharaiah v. State of Mysore and Others
and the High Court ruled that Section 4(1)
requires that there should both be a notification in
the Gazette as also a public notice in the locality
in which the property proposed to be acquired is
situate. It is only when the notification is
published in the Official Gazette and it is
accompanied by or immediately followed by the
public notice, that a person interested in the
property proposed to be acquired can be regarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
to have had notice of the proposed acquisition. We
are entirely in agreement with the rule laid down
by that decision.”
14. Relying on the above judgment, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners reiterated that in the present case, the procedures as
contemplated under the Act had not been followed nor the Gazette
Notification was published and thus, the orders impugned are liable to be
set aside.
REPLY BY RESPONDENTS:
15. The respondents 1 to 5 have stated that land ceiling proceedings
were initiated under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961) 17-70 against the land owner
Thiru G.Ramasamy Naicker, son of Genga Naicker, who held lands more
than ceiling limit. The land owner had filed written statement, stating that
he was the only Legal Heir of his father Genga Naicker and the lands to an
extent of 60.28 acres in Guruvappa Naickanur Village, Kallapuram Village
and Ponneri Village of Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District were in his
possession and enjoyment as on 15.02.1970, and the family members details
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
are as follows:
1. Thiru. G.Ramasamy Naicker - Family Head
2. Tmt. Bakiyam – Wife
3. Selvi. Suganthi - Unmarried Daughter (age 9).
and also he stated that if any land is declared as surplus from his holdings,
he will hand over the lands from his holdings at Ponneri Village.
16. After the field inspection it was identified that the land owner
held an extent of 19.006 standard acres and his wife Tmt.Bakiyam held an
extent of 7.923 Standard acres, the total extent held by the family as on
15.02.1970 was 91.47 ordinary acres equivalent to 26.929 standard Acres.
The ceiling limit allowed to the Land owner family was 15.000 Standard
acres.
17. A draft statement under section 10(1) of the Act was prepared by
The Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore in MR I/38 R/17-70,
dated 28.05.1973 and was published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette, dated 04.07.1973. In the Draft Statement dated 04.07.1973 it has
been mentioned that Thiru G.Ramasamy Naicker, land owner, Tmt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
Bakiyam, wife of the land owner and Selvi Suganthi, unmarried daughter
are the family members. According to the draft statement the land owner
held 91.47 ordinary acres equivalent to 26.929 standard Acres and after
allowing 15.000 standard acres as his ceiling area under Section 5 of the
Act, an extent of 45.28 ordinary acres equivalent to 11.292 standard acres
was proposed to be declared as surplus. A copy of the draft statement along
with form 6 were served to the land owner and his wife Bakiyam on
17.07.1973.
18. Aggrieved by the Draft statement, the Land owner and his wife
have filed an objection petition on 30.07.1973 and 21.07 1973 respectively.
In their objection they have requested that an extent of 36.35 ordinary acres
equivalent to 9.642 standard acres at Ponneri Village may be treated as
“Stridhana”, since, the lands were gifted by Tmt. Bakiyam's brothers vide
documents Nos.1111/1956 and 1112/1956 dated 25.05.1956 to and in
favour of Tmt. Bakiyam. No objections regarding the family members were
filed by the landowner and his wife.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
19. After perusal of the documents produced by the Land owner, the
objections of the land owner were accepted and the orders were passed
under section 10(5) of the Act by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms),
Coimbatore in his proceedings No.38R/MRI (17/70)B dated 29.10.1973
allowing ceiling area to an extent of 46.19 ordinary acres equivalent to
15.000 standard acres under Section I and allowing Stridhana lands to an
extent of 36.35 ordinary acres equivalent to 9.642 standard acres under
Section VI and declaring an extent of 14.09 ordinary acres equivalent to
4.006 standard acres at Ponneri Village as "Surplus". The above said order
was communicated to the land owner and his wife Bakiyam.
20. On the basis of the orders under section 10(5) of the Act, Final
statement under section 12 of the Act was prepared. According to Final
statement based on the Sub Division records there was a difference of 0.16
cents between the extent in 10(5) orders and the extent adopted in the final
statement. But there was no difference in the Standard acres. Hence, surplus
to an extent of 14.25 ordinary acres equivalent to 4.006 standard acres at
Ponneri Village in S.F.No.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2 was demarcated. The
Final statement was published in the Gazette.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
21. Based on the Final statement, notification under Section 18(1)
was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 13.11.1974
declaring an extent of 14.25 ordinary acres equivalent to 4.006 standard
acres in the following S.F.Nos., at Ponneri village, Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
Sl.No SF.No Extent in Acres
1. 266/2 4.57
2. 267/2 0.76
3. 268/2 8.92
Total 14.25
22. The notification was served to the landowner by RPAD on
02.12.1974.
23. The above said surplus land to an Extent of 14.25 acres was
assigned to landless poor persons by the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms)
Coimbatore Ref.No.90/MRIV/dated 03.08.1975. The 'F' Patta were issued to
the beneficiary on 21.09.1977 and 21.03.1991.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
24. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the 'State' mainly contended that Late G.Ramasamy Naicker husband of
the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 had given statement
before the Special Revenue Inspector that his family consist of himself and
his wife Tmt.Bakiyam and Selvi Suganthi only. There were no particulars
available about the writ petitioners R.Rajaveni, R.Gengusamy and
R.Gunasekaran in respect of the subject land. The land comprised in
S.F.No.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2 of Ponneri Village, from the holdings of
Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy Naicker and the notification was issued under
Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1961. Gazette Notification was published in Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 04.07.1973. The surplus lands acquired were
assigned to landless poor persons in the year 1975 itself by the Authorised
Officer (Land Reforms Coimbatore) in proceedings dated 03.08.1975 and
therefore, at this length of time the petitioners cannot have any claim over
the subject property.
25. The learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of
this Court with reference to the statement given by Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
Naicker, the documents are enclosed along with the typed set of papers by
the respondents. In the statement of Late G.Ramasamy Naicker clearly
stated that he is the family head Tmt.Bakiyam is his wife and Selvi Suganthi
aged about 9 years during the relevant point of time was the only unmarried
daughter. He has given a statement and subsequently, a draft letter was sent
to the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue, Madras by the Authorised
Officer.
26. Pursuant to the initiation of proceedings, the Government of
Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue Department dated 14.10.1974
declared the surplus land of Late Thiru.G.Ramasamy Naicker. In the
Government order Gazette publication was also ordered. The Government
order stated that “A copy of the notification as approved is sent herewith to
the Director of Stationary and Printing, Madras through the Board of
Revenue (Land Reforms) published.
27. The learned Additional Advocate General relying on the
possession certificate signed by Late Shri.G.Ramasamy Naicker contended
that the said G.Ramasamy Naicker consented and categorically stated in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
own statement that “if any land is declared as surplus through Land Ceiling
Act, I will hand over the lands at Ponneri Village”. Therefore, out of entire
property held by Late Thiru G.Ramasamy Naicker, he has opted to hand
over the land at Ponneri Village. He has raised objections in respect of the
Stridhana Property given to his wife that was not declared as surplus. As per
the consent of the original land owner G.Ramasamy Naicker, the subject
lands at Ponneri Village was declared as surplus by the competent
authorities under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation
of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
28. Possession certificate was issued by Late G.Ramasamy Naicker
himself in the presence of witness and the possession was taken over by the
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Pollachi. When the land owner
had given the possession of the subject land and the authorities competent
had taken over the possession in the year 1974 and assigned the subject land
to the landless poor persons in the year 1975 by the Authorised Officer
(Land Reforms), Coimbatore in Reference No.90/MRIV/dated 08.08.1975,
now at this length of time the petitioners cannot claim patta, title or
ownership in respect of the lands declared as surplus under Section 18(1) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
the Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT:
29. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th
respondent made a submission that the Government issued declaration in
G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue Department dated 14.10.1974 and
Late.G.Ramasamy Naicker himself agreed to hand over the possession of
the subject land at Ponneri Village and accordingly, the said lands were
declared as surplus under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the year 1975, the
surplus lands were distributed to the landless poor persons by the
Authorised Officer, Coimbatore and after lapse of about 42 years, the
petitioners claim themselves as legal heirs of the G.Ramasamy Naicker are
attempting to resume the property vested with the Government pursuant to
the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961,
which was distributed to the landless poor persons in the year 1975.
30. The learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent contended that
there is no reason to contend that Gazette Notification was not issued. In
this context, learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
reference to the G.O.Ms.No.3495, Revenue Department dated 14.10.1974,
wherein the Government has approved the notification and sent the same to
the Director of Stationary and Printing, Madras through the Board of
Revenue, Land Reforms for publication.
31. One cannot ask to produce the copy of the Gazette Notification
after a lapse of 42 years, since there is a possibility of destruction or loss or
otherwise. Taking undue advantage of the non-production of the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette Notification of the year 1974, the petitioners
after a lapse of 42 years cannot claim that there is no notification issued and
therefore, the lands must be resumed in their favour and patta should be
granted. Such an argument placed before this Court is vexatious and
deserves no merit consideration. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.
DISCUSSION:
32. The Government found that Late G.Ramasamy Naicker son of
Genga Naicker held lands more than the ceiling limit. The land owner filed
a written statement that he was the only legal heir of his father Genga
Naicker and the lands to an extent of 60.28 acres in Guruvappa Naickanur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
Village, Kallapuram Village and Ponneri village of Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur District, and was in the possession and enjoyment as on
15.02.1970 and the details of the family members of the Late G.Ramasamy
Naicker as stated by him was himself his wife Backiyam and daughter Selvi
Suganthi aged about 9 years. Late G.Ramasamy Naicker has stated in his
written statement that if any land is declared from his holdings, he will hand
over the lands from his holding at Ponneri Village.
33. Considering the written statement, the authorities conducted field
inspection and identified that the land owner held an extent of 19.006
standard acres and his wife Smt.Bakiyam held an extent of 7.923 standard
acres. The total extent held by the family as on 15.02.1970 was 91.47
ordinary acres equivalent to 26.929 standard acres. The ceiling limit
allowed to the land owner family was 15.000 standard acres. A draft
statement under Section 10(1) of the Act preferred by the Authorised
Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore in proceedings dated 28.05.1973 and
was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 04.07.1973.
According to the draft statement the land owner held 91.47 ordinary acres
equivalent to 26.929 standard acres and after allowing 15.000 standard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
acres, as his ceiling area under Section 5 of the Act, an extent of 45.28
ordinary acres equivalent to 11.292 standard acres was proposed to be
declared as surplus. A copy of the draft statement along with form 6 were
served to the land owner and his wife Bakiyam on 17.07.1973. The land
owner filed an objection petition on 30.07.1973 and 21.07.1973
respectively. The family of Late G.Ramasamy Naicker requested to treat the
portion of the property as “Stridhana” since the lands were gifted by
Smt.Bakiyam’s brothers vide Document Nos.1111 and 1112 of 1956 dated
25.05.1956. No objections regarding family members were filed by the land
owner and his wife. The objections of land owner were accepted by the
authorities and orders were passed under 10(5) of the Act by the Authorised
Officer in proceedings dated 29.10.1974 allowing ceiling area to an extent
of 46.19 ordinary acres equivalent to 15.000 standard acres under Section I
and allowing Stridhana lands to an extent of 36.35 ordinary acres equivalent
to 9.642 standard acres under Section VI and declaring an extent of 14.09
ordinary acres equivalent to 4.006 standard acres at Ponneri Village as
“surplus”. The order was communicated to the land owner and his wife Tmt.
Bakiyam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
34. Final Statement under Section 12 of the Act was prepared.
Accordingly, the surplus to an extent of 14.25 ordinary acres equivalent to
4.006 standard acres at Ponneri Village in S.F.No.266/2, 267/2 and 268/2
was demarcated. The final statement was published in the Government
Gazette.
35. Notification under Section 18(1) was published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 13.11.1974 declaring an extent of 14.25 ordinary
acres equivalent to 14.006 standard acres in Ponneri Village, Udumalpet
Taluk, Tiruppur District. The Notification was served to the land owner by
RPAD on 02.12.1974. Consequently, the surplus lands to an extent of 14.25
acres were assigned to landless poor persons by the Authorised Officer in
proceedings dated 08.08.1975. The “F” patta was issued to the beneficiaries
on 21.09.1977 and 21.03.1991.
36. The above factual details established would be sufficient enough
to form an opinion that the procedures as contemplated under the Act were
followed by the competent authorities. Now after a lapse of about 42 years,
the petitioners cannot raise the ground that based on the 18(1) declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
issued in G.O.Ms.No.3594 dated 14.10.1974 no Gazette Notification was
issued. The Government order itself reveals that the copy of the notification
approved by the Government was communicated to the Director of
Stationeries and Printing for publication.
37. The lands were declared as surplus in the year 1974. The land
owner had given a statement agreeing to hand over possession in respect of
the surplus land in Ponneri Village. The possession certificate was issued
and the possession of the land was taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar,
Land Reforms. The surplus lands were distributed to the landless poor
people in the year 1975 and consequently, patta was also issued to those
landless poor people.
38. After a lapse of 42 years on 19.12.2017, the petitioners have
submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent / District Revenue Officer.
Thereafter, they started collecting documents through RTI Act, since the
Gazette publication was unable to be traced out. The petitioners have taken
undue advantage of the situation and filed two writ petitions earlier. This
Court remanded the matter for conducting an enquiry. Pursuant to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
directions issued by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet
conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioners. The facts
were elaborately considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and a
finding was made that the Tahsildar in the year 2017 wrongfully included
the names of the petitioners as joint pattadhars and consequently, cancelled
the joint patta and deleted the names of the petitioners.
39. The findings in the impugned order reveal that the surplus lands
declared under Section 18(1) of the Act was distributed to the landless poor
people in the year 1975 and conditional patta was granted to those landless
poor individuals. Therefore, after a lapse of 42 years, the petitioners cannot
claim any right over the subject property, which were already distributed by
the Government to the landless poor individuals under the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
40. The other relief sought for by the petitioner to quash the
Government notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.3594, Revenue Department
14.10.1974 would not arise at all. The documents produced by the
respondents would be sufficient enough to form an opinion that the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
owner himself agreed to hand over the surplus lands at Ponneri Village and
considering the written statement made by the land owner, the authorities
competent had declared the lands as “surplus” at Ponneri Village. Thus, the
objections submitted by the land owner and his wife were considered and at
the choice and consent of the land owner Late G.Ramasamy Naicker son of
Genga Naicker, the lands at Ponneri Village were declared as surplus. Late
G.Ramasamy Naicker had handed over the possession to the Special Deputy
Tahsildar, Land Reform, Pollachi on 19.12.1974 and signed the possession
certificate.
41. Therefore, question of claiming right over the property, now after
a lapse of 48 years, would not arise at all and the grounds raised by the
petitioners are vexatious and beyond the scope of consideration by this
Court. The claim of the petitioners are not only frivolous, their ill-motive to
resume the land, which was declared as surplus under the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 in the year 1974 deserves
no merit consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
42. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
14.09.2023
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary & Commissioner
of Land Reforms,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.
5.The Thasildar,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.30567 of 2019
14.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
