Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
31. 01.2013 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.27887 o”
1. Ammaniammal (Deceased ) 2.Rajalakshmi 3.Ramachandran [ PETITIONERS ] (Petitioners 2 & 3-subsistuted as Lrs in the place of deceased petitioner as per order dated 10.1.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.27887 of 2010) Vs 1.The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chenna”
005. 2.The Settlement Officer O/o the Settlement Officer Chepauk, Chenna”
005. 3.The Assistant Settlement Officer- South, O/o the Settlement Officer Chepauk, Chenna”
005. 4.The Collector Madurai District, Madurai. 5.The District Revenue Officer Madurai District, Madurai. [ RESPONDENTS ] Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 01.10.2010 made in Rc.not K.1/4456/2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to cause the correction in the settlement register of the fifth respondent in so far as Survey No.31/2 Ulaganeri Village, North Taluk, Madurai District and issue patta in favour of the petitioner to the lands situated in Survey No.31/2, Ulaganeri Village, Maduri District. For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Thilakavathi For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 2.The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 01.10.2010 and to direct the respondents to correct the Settlement Register maintained by the fifth respondent in respect of Survey NO.31/2, Ulaganeri Village, North Taluk, Madurai District and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said lands. 3.The petitioner Tmt.Ammani Ammal, is wife of Srinivasa Iyengar. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner died and her legal heirs namely daughter and son have been brought on record as petitioners 2 and 3, by an order dated 10.01.2012. However for the sake of convenience, the deceased petitioner shall be referred to as the petitioner. 4.The case of the petitioner is that her husband Srinivasa Iyengar was in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in Survey No.31/2 as a ryotwari Nanjai even prior to 1950 and carrying on cultivation. After his demise and after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1948, the authorities appear to have considered the revenue entries and a patta was issued in the name of Srinivasa Iyengar bearing patta No.18. After the demise of Srinivasa Iyengar and after coming into force of the Act, an enquiry was conducted under section 15 of the Act and entries in the settlement register referred to as SLR has been suitably amended in the name of the petitioner Ammani Ammal. It is the further case of the petitioner that during updation of revenue records, an error has crept in the 'A' Register and the name of the petitioner was omitted. According to the petitioner, she was not aware about the proceedings and she continued to remit the land tax which was received by the Revenue Authorities. During 2003, the petitioner intended to settle the property and at that point of time, it came to her knowledge that the land was classified as "Anadheenam". Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.9.2003, stating that a mistake has crept in the Revenue Records and sought for rectification. Documents in support of her stand were also enclosed along with the representation. Pursuant to such representation, the Revenue Inspector conducted an inspection and submitted a report on 1.9.2004, which was in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Tahsildar and who conducted an inspection and submitted a report on 20.1.2004, stating that there is record to show that the land was in possession and cultivation and belonged to Tmt. Ammani Ammal. A sketch of the land along with boundaries also formed part of the said report dated 20.1.2004. Based on those documents, a report was prepared by the District Revenue Officer dated 19.4.2004, which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Land Administration along with the Field Report. The first respondent rejected those reports from the said officials, passed an order dated 29.11.2007, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 29.11.2007, by filing a Writ Petition being W.P.No.1871 of 2008, on the ground that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the correction of the entry made by the District Revenue Officer. This Court after considering the case of the parties, by an order dated 28.10.2004, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents herein to forward the petitioner's representation to the fifth respondent, the District Revenue Officer who was directed to pass appropriate orders. However, the District Revenue Officer by an order dated 30.12.2008, rejected the petitioner's request. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal was rejected by an order dated 27.10.2009. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition being W.P.NO. 26153 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 27.10.2009, with a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner and pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written submissions before the first respondent and the first respondent by an order dated 1.10.2010, rejected the petitioner's request. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 5.Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is an outcome of total non-application of mind and failure to consider the records placed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that at no point of time, the petitioner sought for issuance of patta in her name, but only sought for rectification of the error/mistake that has crept in and the authorities concurrently misconstrued the scope of the petitioner's representation. Further, it is submitted that there is no record as to the manner in which the land has been classified as "Anandheenam" and the petitioner has produced the records to show that patta No.18 was issued in her name and there were kist receipts paid by the petitioner in her name and without reference to all those documents, while updation of the Revenue Record was done, the classification was erroneously shown as "Annadheenam". Therefore, the character of the land has to be correctly shown as a patta land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that originally land was classified as 'tharisu' and subsequently corrected as ryotwari punja, based on the representation made by the petitioner and therefore, the authorities erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim. 6.The learned counsel made elaborate reference to the information secured by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act viz. the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 20.1.2004, the report of the Revenue Divisional officer, Madurai dated 18.3.2004 and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, addressed to the first respondent dated 19.4.2004. The learned counsel also referred to the kist receipts issued during 1959, in which the patta No. 18 has been shown to be the patta issued in favour of Ammani Ammal, the Writ Petitioner. The learned counsel also produced the original kist receipts, copies of which were filed as documents in the typed set of papers. The learned counsel further submitted that all along the lands were treated as patta lands, kists were collected and only during 1975-76 onwards receipts were issued as if charges were collected as 'B' Memo. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents erroneously stated that the petitioner has approached the authorities after a long delay of 49 years. The original authority namely the District Revenue Officer, while rejecting the petitioner's representation, by an order dated 30.12.2008, erroneously placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.1300 Revenue Department dated 30.4.1971 observed that the petitioner has approached the authority after 47 years and the period of limitation having been expired, no order can be granted. 7.The learned counsel submitted that the issue as regards limitation was considered by this Court in several cases and the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.2590 to 2595 of 2009, was relied upon and it is submitted the question of delay cannot be put against the petitioner as there was no statutory rule or provision prescribing limitation. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order calls for interference. 8(i)On the other hand Mr. M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that though a counter has been filed earlier by the respondents, since the petitioner had filed additional documents, a need arose for filing an additional counter affidavit and the stand taken by the first respondent in the additional counter affidavit can be taken into consideration. The learned Additional Government Pleader also produced the original enquiry File, the statement of poramboke and all unoccupied lands in Ulaganeri village and the SLR of Ulaganeri Village and submitted that the records would clearly show that the Assistant Settlement Officer had made necessary corrections. (ii)In the additional counter affidavit it has been stated that the order of the first respondent dated 1.10.2010 has been made with full application of mind and based on documents; that the Assistant settlement Officer has made necessary corrections in the Survey Land Register (SLR) during the Final Settlement Enquiry and has correctly classified the land as Government Assessed Dry; that the said order has been upheld by the Estate Abolition Tribunal as mentioned in S.F.7 Register; that the reason why land was classified as Government Assessed Dry and entered in the remarks column as Anadeenam is fully explained in the entries made in S.F.7 Register and that has been upheld by Estate Abolition Tribunal way back in 1962; that the patta No.18 claimed by the petitioner was a pre-settlement patta issued in the names Krishnamoorthy, Ramachandran, Ammani Ammal and T.Seshadri Ayyangar; that during the settlement when the claims of the petitioner were disallowed under section 15 of the Act by Assistant Settlement Officer and Estate Abolition Tribunal, the patta extinguished; that at present patta No.18 stands in the name of Thiru Srinivasan for the lands in S.No.7/2, 7/4, 9/5 and 15/6 and does not relate to the land in question; and that the kist receipts claimed by petitioner is only a B-memo receipts which reflects only the unauthorized occupation of Government lands. (iii)In the additional counter affidavit, it has also been stated that Updating Registry (UDR) was undertaken only in the years 1982-1987, whereas, the petitioner's claim has not been rejected in 1960 itself during the Final Settlement Enquiry; that the petitioner should have proved the existence of both warams before the settlement authority in the year 1960 itself instead of claiming the same in the year 2010. (iv)It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot place her claim based on the report of the Tahsildar dated 27.8.2004, whereas she should have satisfied the competent authority during the Final Settlement Enquiry and also the Estate Abolition Tribunal in support of her claim; that the writ petitioner has wrongly mentioned the date of report of Tahsildar as 27.8.2004, whereas the Tahsildar in his letter dated 27.8.2004, had called for the Settlement records from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative officer and marked a copy to the Revenue Divisional Officer; that the above letter it can be seen that the Tahsildar did not have the knowledge of where the Settlement records should have been preserved; that the Tahsildar in his inspection report dated 7.1.2003 has stated that 'B' memo has been booked in the name of Ammaniammal and that the adjacent land owner one Thiru Irullappan was enquired; that the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration has discarded the said report only after proper verification of other settlement records from which it has been found that though in the SLR the land was provisionally registered in the name of Ammaniammal, the Assistant Settlement Officer disallowed the claim under section 15 of the Act and Estate Abolition Tribunal has confirmed the decision and that the suit land has also been taken to the register the Government Poramboke/ Unoccupied lands. (v)Further, it is reiterated that the entry in the Survey Land register (SLR) was only a provisional one; that those entries are subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer during Final Settlement Enquiry; that the entry of the petitioner's name in SLR does not give her right to claim the land; that she should have put forth her claim before the Estate Abolition Tribunal which she has done and lost the case, however, the same was not stated by the petitioner; that the contention that Final Settlement Register reflects the correct position and not the Survey Land Register (SLR) and that the claim made by the petitioner was not based upon the facts and based only on a provisional entry in Survey Land Register (SLR), have been set right later on during the settlement process and therefore there is no omission/commission by the authorities. (vi)It is also stated that the petitioner's claim that as per S.L.R. her name was entered in the S.L.R. but not in settlement 'A' Register, it would be pertinent to mention that similar changes have also been made in respect of S.Nos.11/2, 13, 14/1, 15/4, 5, 30/1, 2, 31/2, for which patta was stood in the name of Ammani Ammal under Patta No.18 before Settlement, however, the petitioner has staked claim only in respect of S.No.31/2; that during the Final Settlement Enquiry the Assistant Settlement Officer has disallowed the claim of the petitioner under section 15 of the act, which has been upheld by Estate Abolition Tribunal.
9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. The facts of the case has been stated in extenso in the previous paragraphs. The petitioner claims that her husband was issued a ryotiwari patta prior to coming into the force of the Act as early as 1950, bearing patta No.18. Thereafter, without the petitioner's knowledge certain entries have been made in the settlement register, pursuant to which, the land was classified as Anadheenam. Though such entry was done several years back, the petitioner claims that she was unaware about the same and she had not been given any notice prior to the proceedings and only when she wanted to execute a settlement deed during 2003, she came to know of the said wrong classification and immediately submitted representation and initiated the various proceedings referred to above.
11. Though at the first instance, it appears that the facts are complicated, on a closer scrutiny of the documents and the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the issue involved appears to be in a narrow compass. From the perusal of the original settlement records, which were produced, it is seen that the said lands were classified as Panai and the Assistant Settlement Officer has conducted an enquiry and disallowed the claim and passed an order that the survey No.31/2 and 14/6 may be retained as 'assessed waste wet'. This entry is found in the Register of Settlement of Porombokes and all Unoccupied Lands in Ulaganeri village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District. This record has not been disputed by the petitioner, since the said entry also finds place in the documents filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers at page No.42(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not heard in the matter. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said submission, this Court called for the original enquiry file as well as the original SLR of Ulaganeri village. From the enquiry file, it is seen that on 28.12.1958, one Mr.K.Muthalagu Konar has given statement. For better appreciation, the statement which is in vernacular is quoted below:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 12 From the above statement, it is seen that the person has admitted that the writ petitioner and one Sethulaksmi Ammal were stated to be the owners of the lands in Survey Nos.11/2, 13-14/1, 15/4, 5, 30/1, 2, 31/2, measuring a total extent of 3 acres 76 cents. The deponent has stated that he is cultivating the said lands for over 20 years, but he has not obtained any specific Kudivaram right from the said owners, but has stated that he has been paying lease amount by giving paddy. Further in the enquiry file at page No.29, a tabulated statement has been prepared by the officer, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place as against survey No.30/2, which according to the said authority is found in the SLR. In the column 'orders passed under Section 15, it has been mentioned as disallowed and in the remarks column, it has been stated that the lands are in the enjoyment of the landholders and the lands are cultivated by the ryots for lease and the statement has been obtained from the ryots and filed with the enquiry file. Similar entry is also found in page No.33 of the enquiry file. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was not possession of the land and the person in possession was cultivating the land and he was paying lease by way of paddy to the petitioner and his statement has been recorded in the enquiry. This proceedings had concluded as far back as December 1958.
13. From the perusal of the original SLR, it is seen that as against survey No.31/2, in the column 'patta number', it has been shown as waste and no patta number has been assigned. Similarly in the entry in the register so far as survey No.31/2, though originally the land was shown to be in the name of Ammani Ammal, subsequently the said entry has been rounded of and it has been classified as Tharisu. In the remarks column reference has been made to the order passed under Section 15 of the Act. From the date seal, it is seen that the entries were made on 13th December 1955, these proceedings have not been challenged by the petitioner by initiating any earlier proceeding and they appear to have attained finality. But from the enquiry file, it is seen that though the name of the petitioner has been shown in the relevant entries, there is no proof to show that the landholder, namely, the petitioner was issued a notice and afforded an opportunity to submit her objections. The authorities have proceeded with the matter solely based upon the statement given by the tenant. In the earlier part of this order, the said statement has been extracted. Perusal of the said statement shows that the tenant has not given any statement against the interest of the landholder, petitioner, but has clearly stated that the petitioner and another were the landowners and he is paying lease rent by giving paddy. Therefore, the authority ought to have enquired the landowners. The reports of the Tahsildar, dated 20.01.2004, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), dated 18.03.2004 and the report of RDO, dated 19.04.2004, all go to show that the petitioner was in possession. However, these authorities while submitted the report during 2004 appear to have not conducted thorough probe in the matter and proceeded merely based on certain kist receipts. If deeper probe had been done by careful looking into the records, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 15 of the Act would have come to light. The mistake committed by the Tahsildar and the RDO is manifest as they have failed to advert to any of the said contention in their counter affidavit, which was filed during December 2012. It is only after the writ petition, filed additional documents, the authorities appear to have made a thorough study and placed the records before this Court along with additional counter affidavit filed on 29.01.2013.
14. Therefore, on a cumulative consideration of all the facts, it is clear that the contention of the petitioner that there was a mistake in the entry in the revenue record appears to be the incorrect submission, rather the entry in the revenue record is pursuant to the order passed under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, unless the petitioner questions the said order in the manner know to law, the petitioner cannot compel the authorities to rectify the revenue entries and included the petitioner's name as the 'pattathar'. If the Assistant Settlement Officer without conducting proper enquiry, has made corrections in the Survey Land Register (SLR) and the Settlement Officer while passing the final settlement, then the petitioner has to agitate the said issue in accordance with the procedure established by law. Since these facts have come to light only in the additional counter affidavit, there should not be any technical objections from the petitioner questioning the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in the manner known to law. Infact, the question as to whether the request for grant of ryotwari patta can be rejected on the ground that the application was belated, was considered by this Court in the earlier decisions, referred supra, and it has been held in the absence of any statutory rule or provision prescribing any time limit for preferring application for grant of patta under Act 26/1948, such application cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be non suited on the ground for delay.
15. This Court after taking into consideration the above facts would opine that the limitation for the petitioner to question the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement officer shall commence from the date of the order in this writ petition, since there is no record produced by the authorities to show that the petitioner was enquired prior to correction made in the SLR. Further more, the respondents were also not aware of all these proceedings, when they filed their counter affidavit in December 2012. This is all the more a reason that the limitation should commence only from the date of the order passed in this writ petition. Thus, while declining to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, since the petitioner cannot seek for rectification of the entry in the revenue records, unless the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the final settlement are challenged in the manner known to law, this Court cannot accede to prayer sought for by the petitioner for grant of patta in her name. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said proceedings. In the intergnum the interest of the petitioner has to be protected and so that any order passed in the proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner should not become a wasteful exercise. Therefore, the status-quo in the revenue entries shall be maintained as such and no further mutation shall be done and the lands shall not be assigned or allotted to any third parties, if not already done.
16. In the result, while declining to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer and other consequential proceedings initiated under Act 26/1948 in the manner know to law and if such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the said forum shall consider the petitioner's claim on merits and in accordance with law, without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. As observed earlier, the status-quo in the revenue entries shall be maintained as such and there shall be no further mutation of the revenue records and the lands shall not be assigned or allotted to any third parties, if not already done.
17. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. After the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was not given any notice prior to the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and other authorities, petitioner does not have the copies of the relevant orders to enable him to challenge the same in a manner known to law and hence appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to supply the copies of such orders/records. I have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above submissions. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner files an Application for issuance of certified copies of the relevant orders/records, then the respondents shall furnish the same within a period of six weeks from the date of such Application and thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the same within a period of four months as indicated above. rpa/pbn/gm To 1. The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chenna”
005.
2. The Settlement Officer O/o the Settlement Officer Chepauk, Chenna”
005.
3. The Assistant Settlement Officer- South, O/o the Settlement Officer Chepauk, Chenna”
005.
4. The Collector Madurai District, Madurai.
5. The District Revenue Officer Madurai District, Madurai