Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs Durairaj on 23 April, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1073
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Writ Appeal No.3762 of 2024 and
CMP.No.29631 of 2024
1.The Commissioner,
Land Administration Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The District Collector,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
4.The Tahsildar,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur. .. Appellants
vs
1.Durairaj
2.Velusamidurai
3.S.Nagarajan, IAS,
Presently Secretary to Government,
[Expenditure FAC],
Finance Department,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
Secretariat, Chennai-9. ..
Respondents
(R3 suo motu is impleaded, vide order of Court dated
03.01.2025 made in WA.No.3762 of 2024)
Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.11.2024 in W.P.No.10623 of 2024 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.Ramanlal, Additional Advocate General
for Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
(for R1 & R2)
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
We have heard Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant and Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates, learned counsel for the
respondents. The parties are referred to as per their rank in this Writ
Appeal.
2. The facts are as follows:
Ariyalur village was a Zamin. Proceedings appear to have been
taken by the Revenue Department and orders were passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur and the Director of Settlements
as early as in 1962 proposing to vest those lands in the State. While so,
in 2008, suits had been filed by R1 and R2 in O.S.Nos.33 and 35 of 2008
before the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur for declaration of title in
respect of 7.60 and ½ acres of land each, in S.F.No.447, Ariyalur Town
(referred to conjointly as 'property'/'property in question').
3. The District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and
Tahsildar, Ariyalur were impleaded as defendants in the aforesaid two
suits. The genesis of the suits was that R1 and R2 had approached the
authority seeking declaration of title in respect of the property in
question and at that time in was found that the lands had been classified
as Anatheenam lands. Since according to them the lands vested in them
in their capacity as legal heirs of the erstwhile Zamin of Ariyalur and by
virtue of partition executed inter se the family members on 16.07.1955,
they were entitled to the declaration as sought for.
4. The suits were decreed on 30.04.2008. A written statement had
been filed only by the Tahsildar, who was arrayed as D3 in the suits. In
the written statement, the Tahsildar had categorically conceded to the
position that R1 and R2 are in possession of the schedule properties and
enjoying the same and there would be no objection for grant of patta, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
the plaintiffs proved their title. As the plaintiffs had proved their title
through partition deed dated 16.07.1955, the suits came to be decreed
based on the settlement that they are entitled to, as per partition deed as
well as the written statement of the Tahsildar.
5. It is relevant to note that the District Collector, being the
superior officer in the State administration as well as the Revenue
Divisional Officer, yet another senior officer in the State administration
had not chosen to file written statements and the suits came to be decreed
on the basis of the written statement filed by the Tahsildar alone. This is
a conscious decision on the part of the State administration and hence the
consequence of the same would have to be suffered by the parties.
6. While so and based on the decree in the suits, R1 and R2 have
made an application for issuance of patta in the schedule properties,
which came to be rejected by the Commissioner, Land Administration
vide order dated 25.10.2023, challenging which, W.P.No.10623 of 2024
had come to be filed. That is on the one hand.
7. As against the decree in the suits, second appeals in
S.A.Nos.932 and 933 of 2013 had come to be filed, which came to be
dismissed on 28.03.2016. As against the judgment and decree dated
28.03.2016, Review Petitions had been filed by the State in Review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
Petition Nos.91 and 89 of 2019. It is only at that stage that the State
seeks to bring on record the orders passed by the Settlement Officer by
way of an additional typed set.
8. It appears that the compilation had merely been handed over
across the Bar at the fag end of the hearing of the Review Petitions and
hence the learned Judge hearing the Review Petitions has recorded that
there was no petition seeking admission of additional evidence or to
receive the documents as additional evidence. Paragraph 10 of order
dated 22.07.2021 makes it clear that those documents were not being
considered. Hence the learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that the
Review Petitions were pursued only on the ground of fraud and the main
argument taken by the State was that there had been collusion between
the Tahsildar and the plaintiffs in the suit (R1 and R2 in this appeal).
9. The Review Petitions came to be rejected on 22.07.2021, as
against which SLP Diary Nos.14866 and 14869 of 2022 had been filed.
The delay in filing was condoned and, vide order dated 25.07.2022, the
Supreme Court had specifically stated that no case has been made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
10. With this, there is finality to the position that the documents
casually placed by way of of compilation without even a petition seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
admission, are to be eschewed as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
11. The present appeal is filed by the State as against order dated
08.11.2024 allowing the Writ Petition filed by R1 and R2 and directing
the authorities to issue patta to them.
12. In light of the narration as we have set out above, this is a fit
case to come down hard on the State and in fact, to impose costs. This
aspect of the matter has been considered by our predecessor as well and
by order dated 03.01.2025 suo motu contempt was taken and
Mr.S.Nagarajan, I.A.S., who had passed the impugned order in the Writ
Petition as Commissioner of Land Administration was impleaded as R3
in this Writ Appeal.
13. Pursuant to the same, the Contempt Petition was numbered as
201 of 2025 and an affidavit was received from the Contemnor tendering
unconditional apology. A request was made by the Additional Advocate
General that the Court not go into the merits of the statements made in
the affidavit. Accepting the unconditional apology, the Contempt
Petition was closed on 31.01.2025.
14. We are in complete agreement with the order of the Writ Court
and find no merit whatsoever in the present Writ Appeal. The conclusion
of the Writ Court in impugned order dated 08.11.2024 is confirmed. We
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
reiterate the directions to issue patta to R1 and R2 within a period of one
(1) week from date of uploading of this order on the official website of
this Court.
15. The present attempt of the State to re-argue the entirety the
matter today yet again, at the cost of valuable judicial time is deprecated.
16. This Writ Appeal and the connected Miscellaneous Petition are
dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
23.04.2025
sl
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
W.A.No.3762 of 2024 & Cont.P.No.201 of 2025
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C. KUMARAPPAN.,J
sl
Writ Appeal No.3762 of 2024 and
Cont.P.No.201 of 2025 and
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:44 pm )
