(Prayers: W.P.4354 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 22.12.2011 made in Na.Ka.No. 4771/2011/A1 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the mutation of the revenue records in the name of the petitioners and pass such further or other orders.
W.P.4355 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 22.12.2011 made in Na.Ka.No. 4735/2011/A1 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the mutation of the revenue records in the name of the petitioners in respect of 14 ¾ cents in R.S.No.356/4, (Old S.No.624/B) Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District and pass such further or other orders.)
Common Order:
1. The father of the petitioners in W.P.No.4354 of 2012, purchased 2.87 acres of land in old survey No.620/A and R.S.No.358/1 at Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District by way of execution of a sale deed from one Thiru. Selvanayagam. Thiru. Selvanayagam, the vendor who sold the property to the father of the petitioners belongs to scheduled caste. Thiru. Selvanayagam was given conditional assignment of 3.48 acres of land comprised in old survey No.620/A and R.S.No.358/1 at Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District, on 27.2.1924. The petitioners being the sons of the purchaser are entitled to 2.87 acres.
2. The legal heirs of the aforesaid Thiru. Selvanayagam sold 17 ¾ cents to one T.C. Murugan on 4.7.1994 in old Survey No.356/4 (S.F.No.624/B), Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District. Thiru. T.C.Murugan sold the said land measuring 17 ¾ cents to the petitioners in W.P.No.4355 of 2012 on 8.8.2010. A registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners.
3. Whileso, a separate show cause notice dated 23.9.2011 was issued by the first respondent based on the report given by the second respondent that the sale of land to the petitioners took place in violation of the condition of assignment of lands to scheduled caste people. The petitioners were directed to show cause as to why the land shall not be resumed to the Government. The petitioners were directed to give reply within 15 days either in person or through representation.
4. The petitioners in W.P.No.4354 of 2012 gave their representation dated 16.11.2011 to the aforesaid show cause notice. In the representation dated 16.11.2011, the petitioners stated that the period prescribed in the assignment prohibiting the sale came to an end and therefore, the sale was in order. It is admitted that Thiru. Selvanayagam was given assignment of land since he belongs to Scheduled Caste and the land was also assigned with conditions. It is further stated in the representation that Thiru. Selvanayagam sold the properties to meet the needs of his family and the sale was voluntary. The petitioners wanted to drop the proceedings.
5. The petitioners in W.P.No.4355 of 2012 also gave a representation on 24.10.2011.
6. Thereafter, the first respondent passed separate impugned orders dated 22.12.2011 stating that the sale was in contravention of Clause 15 (41)(4)(i) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. The first respondent stated that the lands are resumed for the Government under Clause 15 (41) (4) (iii) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.
7. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid impugned orders in these writ petitions.
8. While admitting the writ petitions, this Court has granted interim stay of the impugned orders on 27.2.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.4354 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.4355 of 2012.
9. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit refuting the allegations and also filed M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2012 to vacate the interim stay in both the writ petitions.
10. The first respondent has relied on the relevant Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue under Clause 15 (41)(4) (iii) in support of their action.
11. Heard both sides.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that there is no evidence for the assignment of land to Thiru. Selvanayagam with conditions. The respondents have not produced the assignment order prescribing the conditions that the assignee shall not alienate the land to non scheduled caste people. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are innocent purchasers and they cannot be made to suffer. Since the order of assignment is not produced, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Secondly, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the judgement of the Apex Court inManche Gowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301.
13. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has produced the original records relating to the assignment of land given to Adi Dravidars imposing conditions. He has taken me through the records and has submitted that the lands in issue were assigned to Thiru. Selvanayagam with conditions. The learned Special Government Pleader has also drawn the attention of the Court to the conditions of assignment that are found in the register. He has also taken me through the records and submitted that in view of the same, the sale is void and the Government has power to resume those lands.
14. The learned Special Government Pleader has relied on the judgement of this Court dated 7.11.2008 in W.P.Nos.17467, 15121 and 15171 of 1996, 14926 of 1997 and 4459 of 1998 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1446 to 1448 of 2008 confirming the order dated 7.11.2008and he has also taken me through the judgement and has submitted that this Court considered the judgment referred to by the learned counsel forthe petitioner and has ultimately held that the same cannot be applied here and the sale transaction that took place in violation of the conditions of assignment, is illegal.
15. The learned Special Government Pleader has also relied on a very recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajastan and Others Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Private Limited reported in2012 (9) SCALE 138.
16. I have considered the submissions made by either side.
17. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents failed to produce the assignment made to Thiru. Selvanayagam with conditions and therefore, the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue cannot be invoked.
18. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel has no merit. Particularly, in the reply to the show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.11.2011, the petitioners in W.P.No. 4354 of 2012 have stated as follows:
“TAMIL”
19. The petitioners have admitted that the lands which were purchased by them, were assigned to Thiru. Selvanayagam with conditions, since he belongs to Scheduled Caste. According tothe petitioners, the time stipulated for prohibiting the sale by Thiru. Selvanayagam has expired.
20. The said reason given by the petitioners also is not correct. There is no limitation prescribed in the conditions of assignment. The conditions of assignment have made it clear that any sale made to non scheduled caste is illegal and the government can resume the land. The relevant passage found in the original record relating to conditions of assignment is extracted hereunder:
“TAMIL”
21. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the judgment of the Apex Court in Manchegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301, was considered by this Court extensivelyin the order dated 7.11.2008 in W.P.Nos.17467, 15121 and 15171 of 1996, 14926 of 1997 and 4459 of 1998. After considering the judgement of the Apex Court, this Court has held in paragraph 21, as follows:
"21. In the light of the above journey into the various legal precedents, it leaves to only one irresistible conclusion that the 'Panchami land' assigned in favour of the dalits as a conditional assignment, if violated, can empower the Government to resume those lands and such resumed lands can be entrusted to some other beneficiary belonging to the dalit community. The arguments of the present petitioners that they were innocent purchasers and they did so only on the strength of some letters given by the office of the Sub-Collector or some proceedings of the Board of Revenue in relation to some other issue. In the present case, as they were in occupation of the said land and were again willing to buy the land for valuable consideration is only stated to be rejected."
22. Furthermore, the Division Bench also considered the judgement of the Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.A.No.1446 to 1448 of 2008 dated 3.4.2010 and concurred with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 6 of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder:
"6. The other submission that since the alienation of these lands was in the year 1925, it will not bind these lands and since the alienation in favour of the appellants was made in the year 1925, these conditions will not affect them can also not hold good, because the Act, as we have seen, by which the lands were distributed to the depressed classes, which was in the 19th century, contained these conditions. Because, even then, the law makers knew that if such safeguards were not imposed, it would be easy to take advantage of the ignorance and poverty of the depressed classes and to secure transfer of those lands contrary to the conditions of assignment."
23. In the judgement reported in 2012 (9) Scale page 138, the Apex Court decided the question as to whether the transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste, is void, in view of the provisions of Section 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
24. A company, registered under the Companies Act, purchased some lands from a member of a Scheduled Caste, who was assigned the land by the Government. The company sought mutation of revenue of records based on the said date. The revenue authorities refused mutation stating that mutation could be effected only if the sale transfer took place between the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The same was successfully questioned before the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan Government took up the matter to the Hgh Court. The Apex Court reversed the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court. Para 17 of the judgement of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder in this regard.
"'17. The above mentioned condition makes it amply clear that the mutation on the basis of registration shall be made only in the name of that particular person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of any firm/society/company/legal institution wherein a person is office-bearer or member. When we apply the above principles to the transfer of land in question, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale deed effected on 26.9.2005 was void and therefore rightly denied mutation in Revenue records. Property, therefore purchased by the respondent from the members of Scheduled Caste vide sale deed dated 26.9.2005 and other sale deeds, therefore are void since hit by Section 42 (b) of the Act and it is so declared. The State can, therefore, re-possess the lands and return the lands to the original owners who are members of Scheduled Caste."
25. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents and there is no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.