Madras High Court
S.Meena @ Meenambigai vs The District Collector on 5 January, 2024
Author: P. Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
and
WMP.Nos.35084, 35086, 35087 & 19248 of 2022 & 3514 of 2023
In W.P.No.30071 of 2018 :
S.Meena @ Meenambigai ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Sub-Collector,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms)
Gandhiji Road,
Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor,
Erode.
5.The Tashildar,
Tiruppur (South),
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 19
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
6.The Village Administrative Officer,
Veerapandi Village,
Tiruppur District.
7.Selvaraj
8.Kanagaraj
9.Peedan … Respondents
[R7 to R9 impleaded vide order
dated 23.06.2021 made in WMP.NO.19261/2019.]
In W.P.No.19952 of 2022 :
Tmt. Meena @ Meenambigai ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Principal Secretary/The land Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruppur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur.
4.The Tashildar,
Tiruppur (South),
Tiruppur.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Veerapandi Village,
Tiruppur District.
6.D.Selvaraj
7.Kanagaraj (Deceased)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 19
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
8.Peedan
9.K.Rajeshwaran
10.K. Rajeshwaran
11.P.Anandan
12.A.S.Maniyam
13.P.Kumar
14. Suseela
15.K. Mohan
16.Robert
[R14 to R16 are substituted as LRs of the deceased R7,
viz.,C.Kanagaraj, as per order dated 08.12.2023 in
WMP.No.25023 of 2023] ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.No.30071 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Certirori, to call for the records of impugned order dated 29.08.2018
passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.675/2018/A2 and quash the same.
PRAYER in W.P.No.19952 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Certirori, to call for the records of the first respondent in the impugned
proceedings No.D1/SMRP No.1/2018 [L.Ref.] dated 19.05.2022 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3 of 19
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.
Appearance in W.P.No.30071 of 2018:
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mrs. V. Yamunadevi,
Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R6)
: Mr. V. Karthikeyan,
for Mr. V. Nicholas (for R7 to R9)
Appearance in W.P.No.19952 of 2022:
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan
For Respondents : Mrs. V. Yamunadevi,
Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R5)
: Mr. R. Prabakar (for R6, R8, R14 to R16)
: Not ready in notice (for R7, R9 to R13)
: Dr. S. S. Swaminathan (for R12)
COMMON ORDER
These Petitions are filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari,
challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the second
respondent in W.P.No.30071 of 2018, vide proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.675/2018/A2, and challenging the proceedings No.D1/SMRP
No.1/2018 [L.Ref.] dated 19.05.2022 of the first respondent in
W.P.No.19952 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
2. Brief facts of the case are that the case revolves around a piece
of land in Veerapandi Village, Vanjipalayam, Trippur, originally owned by
Mr.Sivasubramaniam, declared as surplus land by the Tamil Nadu
Government in the year 1985. The respondents 6 to 13 herein were initially
assigned portions of this land, since the respondent 6 to 13 did not cultivate
the lands, the said assignment was cancelled and the petitioner was
assigned 1.22 acres of land in the year 1995. Subsequently, from 1)
Prabhakaran, 2) Hemalatha, and 3) Smt. Meenakumari lands were also
acquired from each of them of an extent of 1.22 acres in S.No.64/1B and
they have been doing cultivation. After a period of 20 years, the petitioner
had purchased the lands from the said Prabhakaran & others assigned to
them by a registered sale deed and Ayan Patta was obtained in her favour.
However, in the year 2018, the said Patta was cancelled by the authorities
without prior notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, earlier the
petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30071 of 2018 before this
Court and obtained an order of interim stay on 15.11.2018 of further
operation of the cancellation order. But, the first respondent had taken
suo-motu revision and passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 and
cancelled the assignment order issued in favour of the petitioner and three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
other assignees on 05.04.1995, after a period of 27 years, which is
prima facie illegal and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, two writ
petitions are filed by the petitioner before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
agricultural land ad-measuring an extent of 4.87 acres comprised in
S.No.64/1B situated in Veerapandi Village, Vanchipalayam, Tiruppur, was
originally belonged to one Mr. Sivasubramaniam. The writ petitioner is the
second wife of the above said Mr. Sivasubramaniam. The said lands were
declared as surplus lands by Government of Tamil Nadu, under the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, and in or
around in the year 1989. Originally, the surplus land was allotted to
respondents No.6 to 13 each ad-measuring an extent of 0.61 acres for
cultivation. Under the assignment deed dated 11.03.1985, three conditions
have been stipulated. The first condition is that the assignee shall pay the
consideration for the assignment land within the stipulated period. The
second condition is that assignee shall not alienate or encumber the land in
question for a period of 20 years from the date of assignment. The third
condition is that assignee shall not enter into the possession of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
immediately and there has to be continuously cultivation of the land.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that,
since, respondents No.6 to 13 did not enter into the possession of the
property and not paid the assigned consideration fixed for the assigned
land, the competent authority, under the Act, had cancelled the deed of
assignment, after following the due process as contemplated under the
above said Rules. As against the said cancellation order, no appeal was
preferred by respondents No.6 to 13 under Section 10-A of the above
Rules. Therefore, the cancellation of assignment order dated 05.04.1995
had attained finality. Thereafter, the competent authority, after following
the procedures, had re-assigned the agricultural land, ad-measuing 1.22
acres in favour of the petitioner and 1) Prabhakaran, 2) Hemalatha, and 3)
Smt. Meenakumari, each under assignment deed dated 08.06.1995 and the
assignees have also paid the land costs fixed by the Government and
cultivated the land without any interruption and complied with the
conditions mentioned in the assignment order and became the absolute
owner of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that,
after the stipulated period of 20 years, the petitoner had purchased the
property from the said Mr. Prabhakaran & others and assigned to them and
obtained Ayan patta in her favour. When the petitioner approached the
Sub-Registrar Office for encumbrance certificate, she came to know that
the Sub-Collector, Tiruppur had cancelled the Ayan Patta which stood in
her name, by order dated 29.08.2018, vide Na.Ka.No.675/2018/A2,
without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged
the said cancellation order before this Court in W.M.P.No.35087 of 2018
in W.P.No.30071 of 2018 and obtained interim stay of further proceedings
of the said order, on 15.11.2018. While so, the first respondent had chosen
to exercise his power for suo motu revision and issued a show-cause notice
dated 25.01.2019 and the same was received by the petitioner on
01.02.2019. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has submitted the
detailed explanation dated 23.02.2019 to the first respondent. The first
respondent got suo motu revision power under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus) land, Rules, 1965, against the order
passed the assigning authority, either on the application made by the
appellate authority, or on its own motion and such power must be exercised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
within five years from the date of receipt of the order passed by the
assigning authority. After five years, the first respondent has no power to
entertain such revision power. Without any jurisdiction, the first
respondent has passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2022, cancelling
the order of assignment issued in favour of the petitioner and three other
assignees on 05.04.1995, after a period of 27 years, which is prima facie
illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. Therefore, the petitioner challenged earlier the order passed by
the Sub-Collector in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.30071 of 2018 and
subsequently, pending the writ petition, the first respondent in another case
in Writ Petition No.19952 of 2022, took a suo motu revision and passed
the order and therefore, challenging the said impugned order passed by the
first respondent, the said Writ petition No.19952 of 2022 was filed. The
impugned order has to be set aside.
7. The respondents No.1 to 5/Official respondents filed their
counter affidavit, stating that the surplus land to an extent of 4.87 acres
was originally assigned to respondent 6 to 13 herein, vide assignment order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
dated 11.03.1985 and the same came to be cancelled by the Assistant
Commissioner (L.Ref.) Coimbatore on 05.12.1994 i.e, before the condition
period of 20 years, for the reason that the assignees have not cultivated the
lands assigned to them for a longer period of time, based on the statement
of the Village Administrative Officer, Veerapandi Village, who verified the
Adangal extract for the Fasli year 1403.
8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that based on the
application made by the petitioner, the said surplus land of an extent of
4.87 acres, was re-assigned by the authority concerned Assistant
Commissioner, to the petitioner and three benami of the petitioner on
05.04.1995. The writ petitioner has fraudulently obtained the assignment
of surplus land by suppressing the fact that the agricultural land was held
by her husband, namely Sivasubramaniam and got back the assigned lands
from the said three benamis in the year 2016.
9. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that based on the
petition submitted by the original assignees Mr. Selvaraj & 2 others, the
Sub Collector, Tiruppur, has recommended for taking up the case under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
suo-motu power vested with the Land Commissioner under Rule 11(3) (b)
of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965,
and issued show-cause notice dated 25.01.2019 to the assignees viz.,
petitioner and three others. The petitioner has submitted his reply on
25.02.2019 stating that she has fled a writ petition in W.P.No.30071 of
2018 before this Court as against the cancellation order dated 29.08.2018
passed by the Sub Collector, Tiruppur and obtained interim stay.
10. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner has
filed another writ petiton in W.P.No. 8932 of 2021 before this Court
challenging the suo-motu Revision Petiton dated 25.01.2019. This Court,
by order dated 23.04.2021, directed the Commissioner of Land Reforms to
pass suitable orders on merits. Based on the records, the Land
Commissioner has set aside the cancellation order dated 05.12.1994 and
re-assignment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (L.Ref)
Coimbatore dated 05.04.1995 and confirmed the original assignment order
dated 11.03.1985 made in favour of the respondents 6 to 13. According to
the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-
Department, the impugned order passed by the Land Commissioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
perfectly valid and does not require any interference by this Court.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents and perused
the materials available on record.
12. The primordial contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule
11(3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land)
Rules, 1965, the 1st respondent has only power to initate the suo moto
revision, within a period of five years from the date of the order passed by
the assigning authority. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first
respondent dated 19.05.2022 is liable to be quashed and the order of
assignment dated 05.04.1995 in favour of the petitioners has to be restored.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitoner has
placed reliance of the following judgments:-
(i) In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by Lrs., Vs.
Executive Engineer, Jalgoan Medium Project and Anr.,
reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
(ii) In State of Punjab and Ors., Vs. Bhatinda
District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.,
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363;
(iii) In Santhoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors.,
Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors., reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 352;
(iv) In K.S. Arjun and Ors., Vs. The Assistant
Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode and Ors.,
reported in (2010) SCC OnLine Mad 1589;
(v) In K.Desikan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
Ors., reported in (2013) 5 Mad LJ 53;
(vi) In Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., Vs.
Thane Municipal Corporation reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 480;
(vii) In B.Ramadoss Vs. Land Commissioner,
'Ezhilagam', Chepauk reported in 1990 SCC Online
Mad 1013 : 1990 Writ LR 427;
13. Now the core question which required to be answered by this
Court is that:-
“ Whether the suo-motu revision taken up by the
first respondent in the present case, is valid or not under
Rule 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
14. For better understanding, Rule 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 is extracted below:-
“ Rule 11(3)(b) :
The Land Commissioner may, at any time, of his
own motion, within a period of five years from the
date of the order of assignment or the date of order of
the appellate authority, as the case may be, set aside,
cancel, revise or in any way modify the order of
assignment or the order of appeal or revision or issue
such directions as he may deem fit, if he is satisfied
that the order was grossly inequitable. If he is
satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in
the procedure or that the order was pased under a
mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation
or that the assignee is not eligible for assignment or
that the extent assigned together with other lands, if
any, held by the assignee or the members of his family
other than a co-operative society exceeds the limits
specified in sub-rule(2) of rule 5, he may exercise
such powers without any limit of time. He may also
issue such directions as he may deem fit even while
the proceedings are in progress before the assigining
authority or the appellate authority.]....”
15. Admittedly, the land was declared as “surplus land” under the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and
therefore, the same was assigned to the respondents No.6 to 13 on
11.03.1985 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the land.
Subsequently, the same was re-assigned to the petitioner and three others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
and though the Patta was granted, later it came to be known that the
petitioner is the wife of Mr.Sivasubramaniam. In order to grab the surplus
land, they managed with the land officials and got cancelled the assignment
order in favour the respondents No.6 to 13 as if they were not cultivating
the land. The petitioner also created a stage drama as if she is a landless
poor lady and she set up three other benamis and got the land from the
three other benamis. Therefore, subsequent assignee of the petitioner and
three others are family members of the original land holders and also
benomis who are the driver and workers of the said family. Even earlier,
the original assignment order in favour of respondents Nos.6 to 13 was
cancelled without conducting any enquiry, even without sending any notice
to them and without even conducting any field inspection and simply they
cancelled the assignment based on the statement given by the Village
Administrative Officer of the said village after verification of the only one
Fasli 1403 and thereafter, the first respondent initiated suo motu revision
under Rule 11(3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of
Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
16. A mere reading of the impugned order clearly shows that no
enquiry was conducted prior to the cancellation of the original assignment
order of the assignees/respondents Nos.6 to 13. Further, it is also proved
from the records that the petitioner is the wife of the said
Mr.Sivasubramaniam who is the original land owner and from whom the
land was taken as excess land and declared as surplus land and the same
was assigned to respondents Nos.6 to 13 in the year 1985 by the
Government. Further, the petitioner committed fraud by misrepresenting
her family members and worker of her family as benamis and got back the
surplus land. If this attitude is encouraged, the provisions of Land Reforms
Act themselves would be defeated.
17. Further, Rule 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, clearly stipulates that if any fraud
or misrepresentation or any other power other than the power of suo motu
revision is available even beyond the period of five years.
18. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly proved that the
petitioner had committed fraud in obtaining surplus lands from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
Government.
19. The citations referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of his contentions, are not applicable to facts of the
present case on hand. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner cannot be countenanced and the same are liable to be
rejected. This Court finds no perversity in the impugned order passed by
the first respondent.
20. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner
is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petitions. The Writ
Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
05.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
klt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
To:
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Sub-Collector,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms)
Gandhiji Road,
Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor,
Erode.
5.The Tashildar,
Tiruppur (South),
Tiruppur District.
6.The Village Administrative Officer,
Veerapandi Village,
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of 2022
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
klt
W.P.Nos.30071 of 2018 & 19952 of
and
W.M.P.Nos.35084, 35086, 35087 of 2018
and
WMP.No.19248 of 2022 & WMP.No.3514 of 2023
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
