Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
09. 09.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD) No.19616 of 2014 G.Subba Reddy ... Petitioner -vs- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK CHENNAI-600 005.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK CHENNAI-600 005.
3. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.
4. THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADURAI DIST.
6. THE TAHSIDLAR THIRUPPRANKUNDRAM TALUK, MADURAI DIST. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 6th respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.1796/2014/B dated 03.09.2014, quash the same and further direct the 6th respondent to issue Patta to the Petitioner. !For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandha Padmanabhan For Mr.M.Gururaj ^For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Govt. Advocate :ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 03.09.2014, passed by the 6th respondent in Na.Ka. No.1796/2014/B, in which, the 6th respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for issuance of patta. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 6th respondent to issue Patta to him.
2. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: i) The petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 49 cents in S.No.7/6, Thoppur Village, Madurai District through a registered sale deed No.5167 of 1984 dated 10.10.1984 and the said property was obtained by his vendor by way of a registered family settlement. The husband of his vendor has been all along paying taxes for the property and on its conveyance to the petitioner, he had been cultivating cereals till 2002. ii) It was the submission of the petitioner that all of a sudden, in the year 2002, the Revenue Officials issued him an eviction notice under Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1995, seeking an explanation as to why he should not be evicted from the place, as the land stands as ?.Anadheenam?. as per the entry made in the records. On coming to know the fact that the land was wrongly mentioned as ?.Anadheenam?., the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents. Since he had not received any response to his various representation, he filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1152 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court on 14.04.2009 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk to consider his representation. Even then, there was inaction on the part of the concerned respondent. iii) It was further submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondents took steps to issue patta to the Seelaikari Amman Women Association in respect of his land, against which, a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.12848 of 2010 was preferred by him, wherein the respondents gave an undertaking that they had no intention to grant patta to the said Association. It is stated that pursuant to the error committed by the Settlement Officers at the time of survey under the UDR scheme, the land was wrongly classified as ?.Anadheenam?.. In consequence of his representation, the 2nd respondent had admitted the wrong entry of the land as ?.Anadheenam?. in the records. Having found out such irregularities, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 27.02.2012, directed the 6th respondent to make necessary changes in the revenue records by changing the village accounts from ?.Anadheenam?. to Ryot Punjai, by assigning patta to him. iv) The submission of the petitioner is that despite such direction by the 2nd respondent, the 6th respondent has not chosen to adhere to the same and has dismissed the petitioner's representation vide order impugned herein, stating that the patta cannot be issued to him for the land measuring 1 acre 49 cents in S.No.7/6 of Thoppur Village, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 2nd respondent / The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, on perusing all the records produced by the petitioner, has given a specific direction to the 6th respondent / the Tahsildar, Madurai District for mutation of revenue records. However, the 6th respondent has failed to appreciate the SLR copy for the land in S.No.7/6, which was issued in the year 1955 prior to the UDR survey. He has further submitted that inspite of producing sufficient records, viz., SLR copy and SFI registered, which contained the name of the husband of the petitioner's vendor to the 6th respondent, no patta was granted in the name of the petitioner and therefore, the said order refusing to issue patta is arbitrary and devoid of merits.
4. Learned Government Advocate, by filing a counter affidavit on behalf of the 6th respondent, has rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that S.No.7/6, measuring to an extent of 1.49 acres of Thoppur Village, Tirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai has been classified as ?.Anadheena?. as per UDR ?.A?. register, which is a Government Poramboke land. As per SLR, the said survey number stands in the name of one Samiyappakone, S/o.Alagappa Kone vide Patta No.99. It is stated in the counter that in support of the entry in the SLR, neither the sale deed nor partition deed nor gift deed was produced and the UDR settlement was undertaken during the year 1984 and the kist receipts paid by Thiru Samiyappan from 1955 to 1983 were also perused. 4.1. It is further stated that the sons of Samiyappakone had executed a Gift deed in favour of their mother Karuppayee Ammal, who in turn sold the property to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of his son. Thus, it is the stand taken in the counter that in order to grab the Government Poramboke land, the Gift deed, sale deeds and General Power of Attorney have been created. 4.2. Learned Government Advocate has contended that the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai addressed letters to all District Collectors, stating that the settlement department has no jurisdiction to enter into the Revenue Administration under the guise of passing orders under the Abolition Acts, which were settled during the currency of Ryotwari settlement conducted under various Abolition Acts. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness in passing such an order and if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order of the 6th respondent, he can at best file an appeal before the District Revenue Officer. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate has also produced a copy of G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue Department dated 17.08.2004 and submitted that the District Revenue Officer is the appropriate authority to deal with the issue regarding rectification of defects in updating or regulating cases.
5. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on either side and also perused the documents.
6. On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, it is seen that the petitioner has challenged the order of the 6th respondent, declining the request sought by the petitioner, namely grant of patta in his name. In support of his submission, the petitioner has strongly relied upon the recommendation forwarded by the 2nd respondent dated 27.02.2012 to the 6th respondent for mutation of revenue records so as to grant patta in favour of the petitioner. But, to the contrary, the 6th respondent has independently come to the conclusion to the effect that the land, for which patta is requested, is a Government Poramboke land.
7. It was also brought to the attention of this Court by the respondents the correspondence dated 14.02.2011 of the 1st respondent, vide which, it was communicated to all the District Collectors that the Assistant Settlement Officers / Settlement Officers, who are passing orders under the Abolition Act on the time barred applications, have no jurisdiction to deal with the entry in respect of the Revenue Administration. Therefore, it is clear from the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate that the Settlement Officer has passed an order in the time barred application. However, the G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 17.08.2004 produced by the Revenue Department would show that the District Revenue Officer is the appropriate authority to deal with the issue regarding rectification of defects in the updating of records.
8. Be that as it may, when there is an availability of alternative remedy of appeal before an appropriate authority, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the provisions of the said remedy. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. To 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK CHENNAI-600 005.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK CHENNAI-600 005.
3. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.
4. THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADURAI DIST.
6. THE TAHSIDLAR THIRUPPRANKUNDRAM TALUK, MADURAI DIST. .