Madras High Court
Vinayagam vs The District Collector on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1075
W.A.No.729 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Writ Appeal No.729 of 2025
Vinayagam .. Appellant
vs
1.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Collectorate, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu District @ Maduranthagam.
3.The Assistant Director of Survey and\
Land Records/ P.A. To Collector (Survey)
District Survey Office, Collectorate Campus, Chengalpattu.
4.The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District @ Maduranthagam. .. Respondents
Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
Order dated 29.02.2024 made in W.P.No.1879 of 2024 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Subramaniya
for Mr.SP.Patel
For Respondents : Mr.C.Gowtham Raj
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. A Writ Petition had been filed
seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass
necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.10.2023
for issuance of a Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land with hutment
bearing Municipal Door No.2, Mariamman Koil Street,
Anumanthakuppam Village, Karunguzhi Post, Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District comprised in S.No.56, No.142, Anumanthakuppam
Village ('land'/'land in question'/'property in question') within a specified
time.
2. The Writ Petition was taken up for hearing after completion of
pleadings. The submission of the appellant was that he was in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the property in question for more than 20
years and hence entitled for Ryotwari Patta invoking G.O.Ms.No.1300
Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971. He referred to various other Writ
Petitions, wherein similarly situated persons had been granted relief by
the Court.
3. The defence put up by the State was that the appellant had earlier
made a request for issuance of Ryotwari Patta which had come to be
rejected on 16.11.2023. There were other defences put up by the State to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
the effect that the appellant was not a cultivator and was only dwelling in
the subject land.
4. In addition and more importantly, the State averred that the
appellant was also disentitled in terms of the relevant provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948
(in short 'Act'). According to them, the concession extended by the
Government in terms of that Act came to an end on 30.06.1975 and hence
there was no scope or avenue for the State to consider the claim of the
appellant as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.589, CT & RE Department
dated 14.05.1975.
5. The Court took note of the rival contentions. It also took note of
the fact that the Tahsildar had, in fact, rejected the claim of the appellant
vide order dated 16.11.2023 which order had remained unchallenged by
the appellant.
6. Thus, the Writ Petition had come to be closed, learned Judge
noting that the appellant had not challenged the provisions of the Act
disentitling the appellant to the relief sought, the land in question was
classified as 'Meikkal Poromboke', there was nothing to establish that the
appellant was in possession of the property, no adangal was produced to
show that the land was under cultivation by the appellant and hence, there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
was no justification in the petitioner seeking such relief by way of a
representation. Aggrieved, the Writ Petitioner is in appeal before us.
7. We have heard Mr.S.Subramaniya, learned counsel appearing
for Mr.SP.Patel, learned counsel on record for the appellant and
Mr.C.Gowtham Raj, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. Before us, the learned Government Advocate has reiterated the
submissions made before the learned single Judge. In addition, the thrust
of his submissions revolves around G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes
and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987, which is
produced for the first time before this Court.
9. In order to afford an adequate opportunity to the appellant, a
copy of G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments
Department dated 29.06.1987, Circular dated 12.06.2015 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA)
in connection with the assignment of patta for Ryotwari lands as well as
four decisions that had been relied on by the State have also been
supplied to the appellant and sufficient time granted to study the same.
Those decisions are:
i) Sundaram and others V. The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration and others (W.A.No.96 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
dated 09.02.2016)
ii) Sundaram and others V. The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration and others (SLP (C) No.13454 of
2016 dated 13.05.2016)
iii) Durab Zaman Begam and others V. The Director, The King
Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research and others (W.A.Nos.271
and 272 of 2014 dated 06.12.2023)
iv) T.Giriraj and another V. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration and others (W.A.No.1748 of
2015 dated 25.09.2023)
10. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that
G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments
Department dated 29.06.1987 has been specifically passed only to bring
finality in respect of the assignment of patta for Ryotwari lands. The
G.O. considers the suggestions made by the CLA that there had to be a
measure of finality brought into litigation relating to the issuance of patta
in respect of Ryotwari lands. The suggestions made resulted in an
amendment under G.O.Ms.No.1400, C.T.&R.E.Department, dated
21.11.1975 and a date fixed, beyond which claims for issuance of patta
for Ryotwari lands would not be considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
11. As a measure of equity, it was also suggested by the CLA that a
limitation period also be granted, beyond which, the delay in making
claims will also not be condoned. Upon consideration of the suggestions
made, G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments
Department dated 29.06.1987 has come to be passed.
12. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987 and
the annexures under which the amendments had been notified are set out
hereunder:
Government of Tamil Nadu
Abstract
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 – Admission of belated appeals and
revisions – Amendment to the rules prescribed under Section
63,19,19A, 5(2), 7(d) and 67(2) (d) of Act – withdrawn –
Notifications – Issued.
Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department
G.O.Ms.No.714 Dated 29.6.87
........................
ORDER
....................
2. The Government have also afforded certain special
concessions by way of grant of patta outside the scope of the
Abolition Acts. Even after the completion of settlement
proceedings and introduction of settlement. The
Commissioner for Land Administration has now stated that
even then the claims rejected during the settlement
proceedings are reopened within the provisions of the Act by
way of a revision petition with petition for condonation of
delay. Considering the ample opportunities given to get the
claim for lands established under the Government Order
relating to assignment outside the scope of the Abolition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
Acts, there is no real need to provide for condonation of
delay for consideration of claims. Under the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948
after such a long time lag. He has opined that there should
be some finality to these settlement proceedings and that
reopening of closed cases on one ground or other by the
authorities by virtue of the lowers conferred on them would
only unsettle the settled issues and land the state in
continued litigation and expenditure in contesting such cases
in Courts and that he has suggested that the amendments
issued in G.O.Ms.No.1400, Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowments, dated 21.11.1975 may be suitably modified to
that effect.
3. The Commissioner for Land Administration has
also suggested that since a provision for condonation of
delay has been made, it is desirable that while withdrawing
that concession, provision may be made for such procedure,
being availed for limited period, after the proposed
amendment, since the condonation being discretionary,
nobody can object on the ground that any right vested in him
had been taken away, as could be the contention if the
period for appeal is sought to be interfered with. He has
further suggested that as a matter of equity, a limited period,
after the amendment equal to the period, upto which the
delay can be condoned in the normal course, may be
allowed in the proposed amendments in respect of older
cases. The Commissioner for Land Administration has also
submitted necessary draft amendments in this regard.
4. The Government have examined the proposals of
the Commissioner for Land Administration and decided to
approve the draft amendments suggested by him with slight
modification.
5. The notifications annexed to this order will be
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.
Annexure
Notification – I
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 67 read with
section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI
of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the
following amendment to the Rules published with the
Revenue Department Notification dated the 7th January
1950, at pages 25-26 in the Rules Supplement to part I of the
Fort St. George Gazette, dated the 17th January 1950, as
subsequently amended:
AMENDMENT
In the said rules, in rule 6, for the proviso, the
following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided that the Director or the Commissioner of
Land Administration may condone delay upto a period of
thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that
the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the
petition within the prescribed time: Provided further that in
respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication
of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette,
the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of
such publication:
Provided also that suo motu powers of the
Commissioner of Land Administration under section 7 of the
Act shall not be barred in any case".
13. We are given to understand that the said G.O. was notified
around a month later, ie., on 20th July, 1987. Hence, the last date by
which claims for issuance of patta for Ryotwari lands would be
entertained is 20th August, 1987.
14. A perusal of the decisions relied upon by the State would also
indicate that the identical position as obtaining before us has been
considered by two Division Benches of this Court and held adverse to
those Writ Petitioners, this Court taking note of the ceiling date fixed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
the State in respect of the matters relating to assignment of patta for
Ryotwari lands and holding the fixation of 20th August, 1987, as the last
date, to be as immutable.
15. The decision of this Court in Sundaram and others (supra) was
carried in appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.13454 of 2016,
which was dismissed on 13.05.2016. We extract below the relevant
paragraphs, being paragraphs 16 and 29, in Sundaram and others (supra)
as follows:
16. The appellants made the representation on 23 January
2013 to the first respondent, claiming to be the descendants
of Solagiri Zamindar of Hosur Zamin Estate for grant of
ryotwari patta in respect of the land comprised in S.Nos.
155/2 over an extent of 67.65 acres and S.No. 156 over an
extent of 21 acres in Padianallur Village, Ponneri Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. It was not the case of the appellants that
they are in possession of the petition scheduled lands. The
first respondent, exercising his power under the provisions of
the Act, came to hold that as per the Rules framed under the
Act, the appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date
of completion of Final Settlement Enquiry. The first
respondent further held that the rules were amended from
time to time in order to facilitate the land holders, ryots and
tenants to apply for grant of patta beyond the statutory
appeal period and, finally, amendments were made and
notified by G.O. Ms. No.714, whereunder, the powers to
condone the delay was withdrawn.
29. The State Government, subsequently, by several
Goverrment Orders, as referred to in G.O. Ms. No. 1300,
Revenue Department dated 30 April 1971, had permitted the
landholders or the ryots, who could not obtain patta within
the prescribed time under the provisions of the Act, to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
an application for grant of patta in respect of such lands,
provided they were in continuous possession and enjoyment
of any land in the estate taken over under the Act. The said
permission came to an end subsequently by G.O. Ms. No. /14,
which stipulated the last date as 20 August 1987. The
appellants had never come forward under the aforestated
provisions of the Act or under the extended time granted by
Several Government Orders, claiming to be in continuous
possession and enjoyment of any land in the estate taken over
under the Act.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant makes an attempt to re-argue
the position, pointing to the language in which G.O.Ms.No.714 dated
29.06.1987 has been couched. He submits that the Additional Chief
Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, has, by Circular
issued on 12.06.2015, specifically reiterated that the authorities are to
scrupulously abide by the dictat of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987.
Paragraph 8 of the Circular further requires the application filed should
be transmitted to the higher authorities for their consideration.
17. This submission is misconceived and the relevant portion of the
Circular, as extracted below, does not lead to such an interpretation at
all:-
Since the last date to apply for patta outside the sope of
Abolition Acts has expired long time ago, the Revenue
Divisional Officers and District Revenue Officers are
instructed to refrain themselves from entertaining such
applications and send proposals to Commissioner of Land
Administration. Otherwise, it would be viewed very
seriously.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
18.Thus, and on the contrary, a reading of the above reveals that
the intention of the CLA is to specifically direct the authorities not to
entertain such applications or forward the same to the CLA, as the date
fixed under G.O.Ms.No.714, i.e., 29.06.1987, is to be adhered to strictly.
19. There is no merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
sl 02.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
To
1.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Collectorate, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu District @ Maduranthagam.
3.The Assistant Director of Survey and\
Land Records/ P.A. To Collector (Survey)
District Survey Office, Collectorate Campus, Chengalpattu.
4.The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District @ Maduranthagam.
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C. KUMARAPPAN.,J
sl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:34:01 am )
