Madras High Court
T.Venkatesan vs The Commissioner on 23 April, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.13169 & 13171 of 2022
T.Venkatesan
S/o.M.S.Tirumalai
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner
office of the Land Commissioner, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer
Seerapalayam Village, Madhukarai Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records on the file of the 1st
respondent with respect to the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 in D1/R.P.
No.10/2017 (L.Ref) and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran
for Ms.M.Sneha
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.05.2022 wherein the request made
by the petitioner for patta came to be rejected and the order passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, came to
be confirmed.
2. Heard Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
3. It is not in dispute that the subject property was originally
assigned to landless poor. One of the assignee sold the property in favour of one
Chithiraiselvi through a registered a sale deed dated 27.02.2002 registered as
document No.336 of 2002. This sale deed was executed after nearly 19 years
from the date of assignment. The said Chithiraiselvi sold the property in favour
of one Kumaresan by a sale deed dated 31.08.2005. The said Kumaresan sold
the property in favour of the petitioner’s vendor through a registered sale deed
dated 31.08.2006 registered as document No.3563 of 2006. The petitioner
purchased the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated
21.04.2008 registered as document No.2042 of 2008.
4. It is also not in dispute that earlier Patta Pass Book was issued in
favour of the vendors and all the revenue records stood in the name of the
vendors. The same is evident from the proceedings of the fourth respondent
dated 30.11.2006.
5. The petitioner submitted an application seeking for mutation of
revenue records in his name. Based on the same, an inspection was conducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
and a report was submitted before the third respondent. The third respondent, by
proceedings dated 18.12.2016, cancelled the original assignment made in favour
of Perumal and two others. This was done on the ground that the assignee had
alienated the property before the expiry of 20 years. Aggrieved by the order
passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second
respondent and the second respondent, through proceedings dated 06.06.2017,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the third respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the first respondent and the
first respondent rejected the revision and confirmed the order passed by the
respondents 2 and 3.
6. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present case is
the condition imposed while assigning the lands specifically stating that the
assignee should not alienate the assigned land within fifteen years from the date
of assignment. This condition was subsequently amended in the year 1987
wherein the time was enhanced from 15 years to 20 years. Therefore, it must be
seen as to whether this subsequent amendment that took place in the year 1987
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
will bind the assignees, who had admittedly executed the sale deed after nearly
19 years from the date of assignment.
7. The issue in hand is no longer res integra and it is covered by
the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14295 of 2011 dated 20.07.2022. The relevant
portions are extracted hereunder:
"8. There is no dispute that the petitioner's vendor namely
Rengaraja Naidu was granted assignment for an extent of 1.10 acres vide
proceedings dated 31.08.1983. The said assignment order is not a free
assignment, but the assignee has to make payment of a sum of
Rs.4207.20. Though the original authority has found that the payments
have not been made on the date of alienation, the Appellate Authority has
not found fault with the writ petitioner's vendor. The learned counsel for
the petitioners has also produced the challans with regard to the payment
made by the original assignee and the entire amount as contemplated in
the original assignment order has been paid on 28.05.1997. Hence, there
is no dispute that on the date when the sale deed was executed, the entire
amount as contemplated in the original assignment date has been paid off
by the said Rengaraja Naidu.
9. Clause 6 of the annexure to the original assignment order
prescribes that any alienation before payment of the entire amount or
completion of 15 years whichever is later as per original Disposal of
Surplus Rules of the year 1965 would be invalid. Later, Rule 9(1)(iii)
was amended with effect from 12.11.1987. As per amendment, the
restriction regarding alienation was extended up to 20 years from 15
years. Invoking the said amended provision, the original authority as well
as the Appellate Authority have arrived at a finding that the original
assignment is of the year 1983 and the alienation has been made in the
year 1999 which is well within a period of 20 years. Based upon the said
ground, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the order of
assignment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
10. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the amendment
came into effect only on 12.07.1987. The said amendment cannot take
away the vested right of the original assignee to alienate the property
after expiring of 15 years based upon the original order of assignment.
Hence, the alienation made by the original assignee after a period of 15
years cannot be held to be invalid. In other words, the amended rule will
not have a retrospective effect covering the assignment made in the year
1983 also. The issue that arises for consideration is that whether the
amendment of Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal
of Surplus Land) Rules on 12.11.1987 will have a retrospective effect
covering the assignment that were granted prior to the said date.
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR
1990 SC 405 (P.Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka) in
Paragraph No.5 has held as follows:
“5.It is well settled rule of construction that every statute
or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules
showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must
be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in
language which is fairly capable or either interpretation it
ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence
of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule
cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of
procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain
any express provision giving the amendment retrospective
effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary
intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect.
Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not
adversely affect the right of those candidates who were
qualified for selection and appointment on the date they
applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection
had already commenced when the amending Rules came
into force. The amendment Rule could not affect the
existing rights of those candidates who were being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
considered for selection as they possessed the requisite
qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its
amendment moreover construction of amending Rules
should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid
unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over
the subject matter”.
12. In the present case, the Statutory Rule namely Rule 9(1)(iii)
has been amended on 12.11.1987 under G.O(Ms).No.1713 Revenue
Department. The said G.O. has been placed on record by way of typed
set of papers by the respondents counsel. A perusal of the G.O. does not
indicate that the amendment will have retrospective effect.
13.A plain reading of the amendment discloses that there is no
express provision or necessary intendment clause in the amended Rule
for giving it a retrospective effect. Any interpretation to confer
retrospective effect would seriously affect the right of the assignees who
were granted assignment order prior to the date of amendment. For
example, if an assignment has been granted in the year 1971, the said
assignment would have been granted only with a condition that
alienation should not be effected prior to the completion of 15 years i.e.
1986. In case, if the alienation has been effected in the year 1987 prior to
the G.O., still the alienation would get affected. This will have drastic
effect over the vested rights of the assignee to alienate the property after
completion of 15 years as contemplated in the original order of
assignment. Hence, this Court is of the view that the amendment carried
out in Rule 9(1)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus
Land) Rules, 1965, will only have a prospective effect and the same
would cover the assignments made after 12.11.1987 only.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents had further relied
upon Clause 13 of the annexure of the original assignment order and
contended that the assignee has to comply with other conditions in Rule
9 of Disposal of Surplus Land Rules. Hence, as and when the Rule gets
amended, the assignee is bound by the said amended Rule. I am afraid
such an interpretation cannot be given. A perusal of Rule 9 of Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 discloses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
that apart from the condition of non alienation, several other conditions
have been imposed under the said Rule. Clause 13 of the of assignment
order could only be interpreted to direct the assignee to comply with the
other conditions in Rule 9. It can never be interpreted to mean,
amendments which are carried out in Rule 9 from time to time. This
Court has also arrived at a finding that the amendment that was carried
out on 12.11.1987 is only prospective in nature and hence, this
contention is not legally sustainable."
8. It is quite clear from the above order that the amendment carried
to the relevant rule will only have a prospective effect and it will cover those
assignments made after 12.11.1987. In the case in hand, the assignment was
admittedly made in the year 1983.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings
of the first respondent confirming the order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 is
hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to act upon
the application submitted by the petitioner and to issue patta in the name of the
petitioner by issuing necessary proceedings within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the above direction.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.04.2025
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
gm
To
1. The Commissioner
Office of the Land Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer
Seerapalayam Village, Madhukarai Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
Writ Petition No.13912 of 2022
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:10:36 pm )
