Madras High Court
P.Sasikumar vs The Director on 6 September, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.7822 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 01.08.2024
Pronounced On 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.7822 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.8460 of 2019
1.P.Sasikumar
2.S.Rajasekaran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Director,
Directorate of Land Survey and Settlement,
Land Survey and Settlement Department,
Survey House,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North),
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Revenue Tahsildhar,
Taluk Office,
Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned suo-
moto revisional proceedings of the first respondent herein under Section 5(2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/29
W.P.No.7822 of 2019
the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1963 (Act 23/1963) emanating for the issuance of impugned Show Cause
Notice dated 20.11.2018 in his proceedings in E2/1734/2018(2) culminating
into consecutive Notice in E2/1734/2018(2) dated 31.01.2019 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.N.Palanikumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by M/s.R.L.Karthika
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a certiorari, to
call for the records of the impugned suo-moto revisional proceedings of the first
respondent herein under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) emanating
for the issuance of impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018 in his
proceedings in E2/1734/2018(2) culminating into consecutive Notice in
E2/1734/2018(2) dated 31.01.2019 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioners is that originally M.Ekambaram and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed a Claim Application/Petition before the first respondent herein seeking
issuance of Ryotwari Patta with respect to their respective lands situated at
Echankarai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The said village
was an Inam Estate. The Petitioners herein claimed issuance of Patta for their
respective lands situate in the above mentioned Echankarai Village under
Section 11(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) on the strength of personal cultivation
of the lands for more than the period prescribed under the said Act. The second
respondent herein, vide his order dated 28.02.2012 in his proceedings in
S.R.01/2011-1/E2 directed that Ryotwari Patta shall be issued to the claimants.
However, it is pertinent to mention that the final orders were passed issuing
Ryotwari Patta for the lands in the name of its respective claimants. It is also
mentioned in the order dated 28.02.2012, it has been clearly provided that any
party aggrieved by the said order shall prefer an Appeal before the Tribunal
with a span of three months from the date of order under Section 12(2) of the
said Act. In so far the Government is concerned, limitation to prefer appeal has
been provided as one year. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred either by
any aggrieved party or by the Government till date and therefore the order of
the second respondent herein dated 28.02.2012 in his proceedings in
S.R.01/2011-1/E2 had attained finality. Following the orders of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, the third respondent had issued Patta to the claimants vide his order
dated 09.05.2012 and effected necessary mutations in the revenue records.
Section 5(2) of the said Act empowers the first respondent to revise or cancel
those non-appealable orders of Settlement Officer. The said provision, in its
crystal clear terms, prohibits the exercise of such revisional powers by the first
respondent herein with respect to orders of Settlement officer, for which appeal
remedy is available before the Tribunal. In the present case, the order dated
28.02.2012 made by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in
S.R.01/2011-1/E2 is appealable to the Tribunal as provided under Section 12(2)
of the said Act. Thus, the above suo moto proceedings initiated by the first
respondent herein suffers from lack of jurisdiction and explicit statutory
prohibition. Hence the writ petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice
dated 20.11.2018 issued by the first respondent herein calling upon the
petitioners herein to show cause in suo moto proceedings initiated by them
under Section 5(2) of the Act Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) as to why the order dated 28.02.2012 made by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent herein in his proceedings in S.R.01/2011-1/E2 shall not be declared
as cancelled. The above Show Cause Notice culminates into consecutive notice
issued by the first respondent herein in his proceedings in E2/1734/2018(2)
dated 31.01.2019. He further submitted that originally M.Ekambaram and
others filed a claim application before the first respondent herein seeking
issuance of Ryotwari Patta with respect to their respective lands situated at
Echankarai Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The said
village was a Inam Estate.
4. The petitioners herein claimed issuance of Patta for their above
mentioned respective lands situated in the above mentioned Echankarai Village
under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act on the strength of personal cultivation of the
said lands for more than the period prescribed under the said Act. The said
claim petition, pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner of Survey &
Settlement was taken up for inquiry by the second respondent herein and after
the exhaustive inquiry, with due consideration of the materials and
documentary evidence submitted by the above mentioned claimants, the second
respondent herein vide his order dated 28.02.2012 in his proceedings in
S.R.01/2011-1/E2 was pleased to order that Ryotwari Patta shall be issued to
the claimants therein under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, on account of proof of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
their continuous cultivation by their predecessors in title and by themselves,
invoking the powers delegated to the second respondent herein under Section
12(1) under the said Act.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted
that the petitioners herein are the power holders of the above mentioned
claimants i.e., M.Ekambaram and others and on the strength of the power
granted by the claimants, the petitioners herein had participated in the above
mentioned enquiry proceedings by the second respondent herein. However, it
is pertinent to mention that the final orders were passed issuing Ryotwari Patta
for the lands in the name of its respective claimants. It is also worth to mention
that under the above mentioned order dated 28.02.2012, it has been clearly
provided that any aggrieved persons by the said order shall prefer an appeal
before the Tribunal with a span of three months from the date of order under
Section 12(2) of the Act. Insofar as the Government is concerned, limitation to
prefer appeal has been provided as one year. Admittedly, no appeal has been
preferred either by any aggrieved party or by the Government till date and
therefore, the order of the second respondent herein dated 28.02.2012 in his
proceedings in S.R.01/2011-1/E2 had attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
while things remain so, the first respondent herein issued the impugned Show
Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018, calling upon the petitioners herein to show
cause in the suo moto proceedings initiated by them under Section 5(2) of the
Act as to why the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the second respondent shall
not be declared as cancelled. It is pertinent to mention that Section 5(2) of the
Act empowers the first respondent to revise or cancel those non-appealable
orders of the Settlement Officer. The said provision, in its crystal clear terms,
prohibits herein with respect to the orders of the Settlement Officer, for which
appeal remedy is available before the Tribunal. In the present case, the order
dated 28.02.2012 made by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in
S.R.01/2011-1/E2 is appealable to the Tribunal as provided under Section 12(2)
of the Act. Thus, the suo moto proceedings initiated by the first respondent
herein suffers from lack of jurisdiction and explicit statutory prohibition.
Further, the proceedings of the first respondent herein were initiated against the
petitioners herein alone, who are power holders of the original claimants.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted
that the petitioners appeared for inquiry and filed a detailed Memo,
whereunder, the petitioners had categorically highlighted to the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that he does not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry by initiating
suo moto proceedings as the order passed by the second respondent falls under
Section 11(1)(i) of the Act. It was also highlighted that if any person aggrieved
by such an order, his remedy is to file an appeal with the Tribunal as the same
would not come under the sweep of Section 5(2) of the Act and hence,
requested to entertain the issue of jurisdiction at the first instance. The first
respondent ignore the memo and directed the petitioners to participate in the
inquiry, as he had strict instructions from the Commissioner of Land
Administration armed with the opinion of legal experts. Thus, the issue of
jurisdictional rights by the petitioners has been ignored by the first respondent.
8. The first respondent herein has initiated suo moto revisional
proceedings after a lapse of nearly 8 years clearly exhibits arbitrariness, and
mala fides and the same is liable to be quashed. Section 5(2) of the Act
empowers the first respondent to revise or cancel those non-appealable orders
of the Settlement Officer. The said provision, in its crystal clear terms,
prohibits the exercise of such revisional powers by the first respondent with
respect to orders of the Settlement Officer for which, an appeal remedy is
available before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
submit that according to Section 7(c) of the Act, the order of the Settlement
Officer cannot be revised. He further submitted that if there is an appealable
remedy, no revision will lie and when there is no appeal remedy, revision can
be made by the respective parties. In the case on hand, the order passed by the
Settlement Officer dated 28.02.2012 is an appealable order and the period of
limitation for the same is one year and no appeal has been preferred by the
Government.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
submit that as per the Act, 1963, the Commissioner of Land Administration
does not have powers to suo moto review the order passed by the Assistant
Settlement Order way back in the year 2012. The Show Cause Notice was also
issued after a lapse of 6 years where the “Ryotwari Patta” was granted on
28.02.2012 by proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) the
second respondent and the suo moto revisional order date 28.09.2018.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajathi and another Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration and
another in W.P.No.1464 of 2013 dated 22.02.2013, 2013 (2) CTC 129.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submitted that this Court has granted interim stay of the impugned Show Cause
Notice on 27.03.2019 in W.M.P.No.8460 of 2019 in W.P.No.7822 of 2019 and
the same has been extended until further orders by order dated 29.04.2019 and
the same is still in force as on date.
13. The Counter Affidavit was filed by the first respondent and the
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted
that at the time of introduction of Ryotwari Settlement in the Village, the land
comprised in Survey Nos.46/1, 2 and others was classified as “Government-
Dry-Anadheenam” in the year 1965 and the same was not challenged till date.
Hence, the Patta issued to the petitioners by the proceedings of the Assistant
Settlement Officer (North) the second respondent in S.R.01/2011-1/E2 dated
28.02.2012 is illegal and invalid. He further submitted that the “Ryotwari
Patta” was granted to the petitioners under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. He
further submitted that as per Section 12(2) of the Act, against a decision of the
Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Government may, within one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
year from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision
may, within three months from the said date, appeal to the Tribunal; Provided
that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding six
months for the filing of any such appeal; Provided further that the Tribunal
may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it
appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Settlement Officer was vitiated
by fraud or by mistake of fact.
14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents
further submitted that no appeal has been filed by the Government challenging
the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) the second
respondent on 28.02.2012 granting “Ryotwari Patta” issued to the petitioners as
per Section 12 of the Act.
15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents
further submitted that in this case, the Patta was issued to the petitioners by the
Assistant Settlement Officer (North) the second respondent by mistake since
the land was classified as “Anadheenam land” as early as 1965.
16. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
T.Giriraj (Deceased) and Amsa @ Hamsaveni Vs. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk,
Chennai and others in W.A.No.1748 of 2015 dated 25.09.2023, wherein, the
Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement Vs. M.Arumugam, in W.A.No.326 of 2007 dated 24.07.2007
reported in 2007 (4) CTC 538.
17. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents
submitted that the application for the grant of Patta has been admitted after a
lapse of 43 years, since the introduction of Ryotwari Settlement in Village,
which is against Rule 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965 framed under the Act and also Section
12(2) of the said Act. The Settlement Tahsildar exercised the delegated powers
of the Settlement Officer provided in Section 12(1) of the said Act at the time
of introduction of the Ryotwari Settlement. Hence, if any person is aggrieved
against any of the order, he may file an appeal before the Inam Abolition
Tribunal only as per Section 12(2) of the said Act. With respect to the suit
lands, the order as to the classification of the subject lands had already attained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
its finality as per Section 71(1) of the said Act. Hence, the Assistant Settlement
Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain any application afresh in violation of
Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the Rules framed under this Act. Since the subsisting
order as to the classification determined at settlement as “Government Dry-
Anadheenam” was not cancelled by the Appellate Forum, the order passed by
the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) the second respondent herein for the
second time with respect of the same land is void ab initio. This apart, in the
inquiry conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) the second
respondent herein, the petitioners did not file any valid documents or records to
prove their rights as per the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act.
18. It is further submitted that in view of the above circumstances, the
Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, in
consultation with the Additional Advocate General, instructed the Director of
Survey and Settlement as per Section 7(c) and 7(d) of the said Act, to review
the above orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer suo moto under Section
5(2) of the said Act.
19. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the respective
petitioners requested them to show the reasons as to why the above orders of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Assistant Settlement Officer should not be cancelled on the grounds stated
above and challenging the said Show Cause Notice, the petitioners have come
forward with the present writ petition.
20. It is further submitted that this village has been settled under the said
Act in the year 1377 fasli (calender year 1967) and the suit lands have been
classified as “Government Dry-Anaadheenam” lands.
21. If any person aggrieved against the classification or order or the grant
or non-grant of Patta, the aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Inam
Abolition Tribunal within three months as per Section 12(2) of the said Act. If
no one has filed an appeal, the order passed/classification determined last
became final as per Section 71(1) of the said Act and it cannot be questioned
before any Court as per Section 71(2) of the said Act.
22. When the entire settlement work has been completed about 43 years
ago, based on applications or suo moto as per Rule 9(1) and 9(3) of the said
Rules, there can be only appeals and no fresh applications/petitions. Further, as
per Section 11 of the said Act, the claimants should prove that the said lands
were under his personal cultivation prior to the dates mentioned in the
provisions. But, the Assistant Settlement Officer did not look into all these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
matters and passed orders without jurisdiction. Thus, the Assistant Settlement
Officer cannot entertain any petitions/appeals and pass any second order for the
same land, unless or otherwise the earlier subsisting orders as to its
classification and title were not cancelled by the appropriate appellate forum
appointed under the said Act. Hence, the orders of the Assistant Settlement
Officer (North) in question were without jurisdiction, unlawful and void ab
initio in the eyes of law. Further, these orders were not mutated in revenue
records and no Pattas were issued. The above orders passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer came to be knowledge of the Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration and found to be irregular and he
directed the Director of Survey and Settlement as per Section 7(c) and 7(d) of
the said Act, to take up this matter for suo moto review. Hence, the Director of
Survey and Settlement issued Show Cause Notices to the respective petitioners
in order to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein to
substantiate their rights as per law.
23. Further, the classification of the land as “Government-Dry-
Anaadheenam” had already attained its finality as per Section 71(1) of the Act
as there was no appeal within the stipulated appeal time provided in Section
12(2) of the said Act. Further, when this order was not cancelled and remanded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the Assistant Settlement Officer by any of the appellate/revision authorities
appointed under the Act, the Assistant Settlement Officer cannot pass another
order for the same land. In this matter, as the Assistant Settlement Officer has
passed another order for the sane land even when the earlier subsisting order is
valid and therefore the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North)
the second respondent is void ab initio. It is further submitted that the
petitioners sought for certain copies of records under the RTI Act, available in
the Assistant Settlement Officer's file and they were issued to the petitioners
under the RTI Act vide Office Endorsement Letter Rc.D2-1234-2019 dated
08.05.2019.
24. The petitioners have appeared for the inquiries conducted on
28.11.2018, 12.12.2018 and 20.02.2019, through their Advocates and requested
time for filing suitable replies to the Show Cause Notice to issue to them.
Thus, the petitioners are only delaying in filing the written statements or put
forth their documents/records to substantiate their rights over the suit lands, as
per law. It is further submitted that if the notices are stayed or cancelled, the
Government would face difficulties in protecting Rs.350 Crores valuable
Government lands for an extent of 23.42.0 Hectares or 57.85 Acres and it will
further pave way for others to grab the valuable Government lands in the same
manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
26. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Assignment Order
dated 28.02.2012 and the same reads as follows:-
“,t;tHf;fpy; kDjhuh;fshy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l fpuag;
gj;jpu';fs; bjhlh;g[ila tUtha;f;fzf;Ffs; epythpj;jpl;l
v!;/Mh;/nfhg;g[. v!;/vy;/Mh; kw;Wk; tprhuiz mwpf;iffs;
kDjhuh;fs; nfhhpf;if Fwpj;J Th;e;J ghprPypf;fg;gl;ld/
kDjhuh;fs; gl;lh nfhUk; g[y';fs; mth;fshYk; mth;fSf;F
Kd;g[ mth;fSf;F fpuak; bfhLj;jth;fshYk; brhe;jkhf
gaphplg;gl;L KG mDgtk; bra;J tUtJk; jkpH;ehL rl;lk; 26-
63?d; fPH; kDjhuh;fs; my;yJ mjw;F Kd; epyj;ij tptrhak;
bra;J tUgth; rl;lg;gphptpd; fPH; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l ehshd
15/4/1965 md;Wk; mjw;F Kd; 12 Mz;Lfs; bjhlh;r;rpahf
tptrhak; bra;J tUtjhft[k; mth;fs; bjhptpj;Js;sij Vw;Wk;
,jpy; ,th;fs; gl;lh bgWtjpy; Ml;nrgid VJkpy;iy vd;gJ
Mtz';fspd;go chpik bgw;W mDgtpj;J tUtJk; bjspthfj;
bjhpa tUtjhy; jkpH;ehL ,dhk; v!;nll; (xHpg;g[k; kw;Wk;
uaj;Jthhpahf khw;wYk;) rl;lk;. 26-63?d; gphpt[ 10(1) kw;Wk;
11(1)(i)?d; fPH; gl;oaypy; fz;lthW kDjhuh;fSf;F uaj;Jthhp
gl;lh tH';fp MizapLfpnwd;/”
27. The main contention of the petitioners is that the order vide
proceedings in S.R.01/2011-1/E2 was passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer (North), Chepauk, Chennai, the second respondent on 28.02.2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granting “Ryotwari Patta” to the petitioners and if the Government is
aggrieved by the said order, they have every right to challenge the same
under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963). The
Government has not preferred or filed any appeal against the above order
till date and it has reached its finality.
28. It is pertinent to extract Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of
1963).
“12. Determination of lands in which any person is entitled to
Ryotwari Patta:
(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the claims of any
person for a ryotwari patta under Section 9 or Section 10 or Section
11, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim
should be allowed.
(2) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-
section (1), the Government may, within one year from the date
of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision may,
within three months from the said date, appeal to the Tribunal.
Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow
further time not exceeding six months for the filing of any such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal:
Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion,
entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it appears
to the Tribunal that the decision of the Government Officer was
vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact.”
29. The issue/point for consideration and to be decided in this writ
petition is that
“whether the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of
Land Administration or the Director of Land Survey and Settlement
has got power to suo moto review the order dated 28.02.2012 passed
by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Chennai the second
respondent, when there is an appeal remedy available under Section
12 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963).”
30. The suo moto revisional order was passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration after a lapse of 6 years vide
his proceedings in Lr.No.K1/26218/2017 dated 28.09.2018 pursuant to which,
the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No.E2/1734/2018(2) dated
20.11.2018 and the consecutive Notice dated 31.01.2019 were issued by the
first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31. It is pertinent to extract Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of
1963), which deals with the exercise of revisional power by the Board of
Revenue. It reads as under:-
“7. Powers of control of the Board of Revenue:
The Board of Revenue shall have power-
(a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act and in
particular to superintend the taking over of estates and to make due
arrangements for the interim administration thereof;
(b) to issue instruction for the guidance of the Director,
District Collectors, Settlement Officers and managers of estates;
(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or
proceedings of any Settlement Officer other than those in
respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal or of any
managers; and
(d) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings
of the Director or of any District Collector, including those passed,
done or taken in the exercise of revisional powers.”
32. In the subject matter land, the “Ryotwari Patta” was issued to the
petitioners by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Chepauk, Chennai, the
second respondent on 28.02.2012 under Section 11(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu
Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act 26 of 1963).
33. The Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai had
referred in the Show Cause Notice about the Letter bearing
Na.Ka.No.1/26218/2017 dated 28.09.2018 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, but the copy of the above
referred letter was not enclosed along with the Show Cause Notice.
34. By virtue of Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the Director of Survey and
Settlement shall have the power to cancel or revise any of the orders, or
proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than the matter for which an
appeal lies to the Tribunal.
35. The Director of Survey and Settlement proceeded to issue Show
Cause Notice under Section 5(2) of the Act, in pursuant to the above referred
letter and on instruction of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of
Land Administration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36. Even as per Section 5(2), the Director of Survey and Settlement is
not entitled to issue Show Cause Notice to the First Respondent since the order
of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Settlement Tahsildar) referred in the Show
Cause Notice are passed under Section 11(1)(i) of the above said Act, which is
an appealable order. Section 5(2) of the Act will be applicable only in cases
where no appeal to Tribunal are prescribed under the Act. Section 11(1)(i) of
the Act is appealable as per Section 12(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Director
of Settlement is not having any jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice to the
first respondent under Section 5(2) of the Act.
37. The appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer lie only before the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation
under Section 12(2) of the Act and as such Director of Settlement cannot take
the suo moto review as directed by the Commissioner of Land Administration.
38. None of the provisions in the Act empowers the Commissioner of
Land Administration to remand and direct the Director of Survey and
Settlement to pursue action against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, the act of Commissioner of
Land Administration in remanding and directing the Director of Survey and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Settlement to pursue action against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act.
39. The act of the Director of Survey and Settlement in accordance to the
direction/instruction given by the Commissioner of Land Administration and
causing notice to the first respondent against the order passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act is also against the
provisions of the Act.
40. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the
Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajathi and
another Vs. The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land
Administration and another, in W.P.No.1464 of 2013 dated 22.02.2013,
2013 (2) CTC 129 and the same is not applicable to the case on hand since
the proceedings in that case was under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948).
41. The main contention of the respondents is that the land has been
classified as “Government-Dry-Anadheenam” land way back in the year
1965 and the same was not challenged till now by the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the order in
regard to issuance of “Ryotwari Patta” in favour of the petitioners by the
Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Chepauk, Chennai, the second
respondent was passed on 28.02.2012 after considering all the documents
submitted by the petitioners and after conducting a detail inquiry. The
third respondent following the order of the second respondent has also
issued Patta to the claimants vide his order dated 09.05.2012.
43. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents relied on
the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.Giriraj
(Deceased) and Amsa @ Hamsaveni Vs. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai and others, in
W.A.No.1748 of 2015 dated 25.09.2023 following the Judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of The Special Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement Vs. M.Arumugam in W.A.No.326 of 2007 dated
24.07.2007, 2007 (4) CTC 538.
44. The above Judgment of the Division Bench following the Full
Bench Judgment of this Court is not applicable to the case on hand since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Full Bench of this Court passed Judgment under Section 5(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948
(Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948). In the present case, the proceedings has been
initiated as per Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963).
45. This Court at the time of admission of the writ petition, has
granted interim order of stay on 27.03.2019 in W.M.P.No.8460 of 2019 in
W.P.No.7822 of 2019 until further orders, and the same is in force till date.
46. In view of the above factual matrix of the case, this Court is of
the considered view that the Director of the Land Survey and Settlement
Department the first respondent herein cannot suo moto review the order
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Chennai, the second
respondent herein dated 28.02.2012 when there is an appeal remedy
provided to the Government under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu
Act 26 of 1963) and the same was not preferred by the Government till
date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
47. It is crystal clear and evident that the impugned Show Cause
Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in
E2/1734/2018(2) culminating into consecutive Notice in E2/1734/2018(2)
dated 31.01.2019 is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set
aside or quashed.
48. The impugned suo moto revisional proceedings initiated by the
first respondent herein under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) is liable
to be quashed on the following reasons and grounds:
(1) The order passed by the second respondent dated 28.02.2012 is an
appellable order and no review will lie against the said order and the
same is not maintainable under the said Act.
(2) The order of the second respondent is an appealable order and the
Government has not preferred any appeal under Section 12(2) of the
the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) till date.
(3) The suo moto review can be done only under Section 7(c) of the the
Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) and the same reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“7(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of
any Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an
appeal lies to the Tribunal or of any managers.”
In the case on hand, the appeal lies to the Tribunal and the Government
has not preferred any appeal till date.
49. In fine, the impugned suo-moto revisional proceedings of the first
respondent herein under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963)
emanating for the issuance of impugned Show Cause Notice dated
20.11.2018 in his proceedings in E2/1734/2018(2) culminating into
consecutive Notice in E2/1734/2018(2) dated 31.01.2019 is liable to be
quashed and the same is hereby quashed.
50. In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
arb
To
1.The Director,
Directorate of Land Survey and Settlement,
Land Survey and Settlement Department,
Survey House,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North),
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Revenue Tahsildhar,
Taluk Office,
Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
arb
Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.7822 of 2019
and
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
