P.Venkata Rao v. The Secretary

ORDER:-In the G.O first read above, the Government passed orders that landlords who could not apply of ryotwari patta in time under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but who would have got patta if they had applied in time, might be granted patta outside the scope of the Act, if they apply to the Collector of the District concerned. In the Memo, second read above, the Government ordered that the vendees from the landholders might also be treated on the same basis as landholders. Subsequently in 1967, the Government passed orders in the G.O third read above that the concession allowed to the landholders should be executed to the ryots also and that they should be granted patta outside the scope of the Act on the same basis as laid down in the first read above. Thus the existing orders Provide for cases for the grant of patta to the landholders and ryots outside the scope of the Act in cases:-

(i) Where the landholder or the ryot or the vendee have got patta if he had applied in time under the Abolition Act but failed to make the application in time.

(ii) Where the parties case into possession of better documentary evidence showing better title to grant of patta which were not available at the time when the applicants were heard by the appropriate authorities under the Act.

(2). It has been brought to the notice of the Government that even the implementation of the orders referred to above, there are yet a large number of persons who have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land for years together in estate, taken over under the Act. Such persons have not been granted patta either because they did not come under the eligible category for the grant of patta under the Act or under the orders of the Government referred to above. It has been represented that it will be a hardship if such persons who have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of their lands for together are not granted pattas.

¶3The land in respect of which these persons have been in continuous possession and enjoyment have vest in the Government absolutely under the Act. The Government after careful consideration have decided that patta should be granted to such persons on the basis of such continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. The Government therefore direct that such persons may be granted patta in accordance with the instructions given below:-

(i) Any person who has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of any land in the estates taken over under the Act, may apply for the grant of patta in respect of such land.

(a) To the Revenue Divisional Officers in cases where the extent of such land does not exceed 5 acres of wet or irrigable dry or 10 acres of dry lands; and

(b) To the District Revenue Officer-Collector in all other cases. Persons whose claims have been rejected under the Act or under the orders referred to above, may also apply this order, if such persons have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.

(2). he Revenue Divisional Officer/District Revenue Officers/Collector may grant patta of such application after the usual enquiry and after satisfying himself that the applicant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land.

(3). he extent of the land for which patta is to be granted either by himself or together with the lands already held by the applicant shall not exceed the ceiling limit fixed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961, as modified by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on land) Act, 1970.

(4). n cases where there are rival claims for the grant of patta in respect of the same land, the authority concerned may, in appropriate cases direct the portion to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.

(5). In respect of cases whose land has been classified during settlement as communal poromboke but on ground, it has been converted as dry or wet field and the applicant has been in continuos possession and enjoyment of the land, the appropriate authority may grant patta in respect of such land after following the prescribed procedure for changing the classification of the land.

(6). Consultation with the settlement authorities before the grant of patta will not be necessary unless the Revenue Divisional Officer/District Revenue Officer/Collector is of the view that the matter on such required scrutiny from the settlement point of view.

(7). No market value of the land shall be collected for the grant of patta underthese orders.

(8). Adequate publicity in the village and its neighbourhood shall be given by the appropriate authority about the proposal to grant patta under these orders.

(9). The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Collector as the case may be granted or refusing to grant patta are subject to revision by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras either suo motu or on application to be filed within sixty days of services of the order.

(10) The Board of Revenue (SE) Madras is requested to issue suitable instructions for the proper implementation of these orders to their subordinate authorities." /By order of the Governor/ Sd/-A.Pasupathi. Secretary to Government. Sd/-xxx Tahsildar Namakkal

¶18This G.O was promulgated to extend a one time benefit to the persons who would have got patta if they had applied within time. Initially, G.O.Ms.No.1501 (Revenue) dated 08.07.1958 was passed to enable the land owners to make an application for issuance of ryotwari patta. Subsequently in and by G.O.Ms.No.1312 (Revenue) dated 26.07.1967, the concession was extended toryots, also apart from land holders, entitling them to get patta outside the scope of the Act. Thereafter, in G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971, the board of revenue was requested to suitably implement the said G.O. Pursuant to the same G.O.Ms.No.589(Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department) dated 14.05.1975 was issued in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971, regarding time limit for grant of pattas outside the scope of Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Thus, it is seen that,in any by G.O.Ms.No.589, the time limit for preferring applications for grant of ryotwari patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, 1948was extended upto 30.06.1975 across districts in the State. The said G.O is extracted for easy reference:- "G.O.Ms.No.589, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 14.5.1975. LANDS - Lands in estates taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948-Grant of patta to persons outside the scope of the Abolition Act -Time Limit for preferring applications fixed in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71-Extended upto 30.6.75 Read:

¶1G.O.Ms.No. 1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71

¶2Government Memo No.33148/31/72-1, Revenue, dated 6.3.72.

¶3Government Memo, No.9317/J1/73-4, Revenue dated 2.5.73

¶4Government Merno, No.159682/J1/73-1, Revenue dated 26.12 74.

¶5From the President, Madural District, Agriculturists Sangam, Tenkarai, Periakulam, letter No. 665/74, dated 29.12.74

6.

Government

D.O.No.2126/VIII(1)/75-1, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 24.1.75.

¶7From the Board of Revenue (SE)A1, 12406/74 dated 22.3.75. ORDER In G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71, as clarified in Government Memo 23148/J1/72-1. Revenue, dated 6.8.72, instructions were issued for the grant of pattas outside the scope of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 to any person who has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of any land which have vested in the Government absolutely under the Act. In Government Memo 9317/31/73-4, Revenue, dated 25.73, the Government extended the time limit for preferring claims for pattas outside the scope of the Abolition Act 1948 under above G.O.Ms.No. 1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71 upto 1.8.73 in Dharmapuri District and upto 30.6.73 in respect of other District. Subsequently on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the Government in Memo No.159682/J1/73-1, Revenue, dated 26.12.73 directed that the time limit for preferring applications outside the scope of the Abolition Act, 1948 under G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71 be extended upto 30.6.74 in all Districts.

¶2It has now been represented to the Government that a large number of applications are yet to be submitted for issue of such pattas and that as such the time limit may be further extended. The Board of Revenue has examine the question of extending the time limit in consultation with all the Collectors and District Revenue Officers and has recommended that the time limit for preferring applications for the grant of patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, 1948 under G.O.Ms.No. 1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.71 may be extended upto 30.6.75. The Government after careful examination accept the recommendation of the Board and direct that the time limit for preferring applications outside the scope of the Abolition Act, 1948 under G.O.Ms.No. 1300, Revenue, dated

30.4.71 be further extended upto 30.6.75 in all the Districts.

¶3The Board of Revenue (SE) is requested to issue suitable instructions to the subordinate officers concerned in the matter under intimation to Government. (By Order of the Governor) Sd./ C.N.Raghavan, Secretary to Government"

¶19Subsequent to the said G.O there has been no further extension of time and therefore all or any application made by either ryots or land holders for grant of ryotwari pattas outside the purview of the Abolition Act of 1948 ought to have been made on or before30.06.1975. Any application made thereafter was clearly not maintainable and liable to be rejected at the threshold.

¶20In the instant case, it is seen that the appellant's mother had earlier requested for the grant of patta by an application in the year 1954 which was certainly within the time stipulated under the Act and subsequent Government orders. However, in and by proceedings in the year 1957, orders came to be passed holding that the appellant's mother was entitled only to 44.51 acres under Section 15 of the Act and 5.44acres under Section 11 of the Act.

¶21In the facts of the case on hand, the course open to the appellant's mother/ the appellant were two-fold. One, in so far as the order passed under Section 11, entitling the mother to 5.44 acres, the said proceedings were of the year 1957.Applying the mandate of G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971 and G.O.Ms.No.589 dated

14.05.1975, the rights that were available to the appellant's mother/ the appellant got extinguished in the year 1975, more specifically 30.06.1975.

¶22In so far as entitlement of 44.51 acres under Section 15 of the Act, the said proceedings were also of the year 1957. In order to better appreciate the distinction, we deem it fit to discuss the relevant provisions of the statute namely The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Act 26 of 1948, a time limit was prescribed for making a original application for grant of ryotwari patta. The said period was over as in when the classification of lands were settled or published, thereafter the only remedy to get a ryotwari patta was to challenge the classification made under the original proceedings or filing an appeal before the designated forum, that too only within the permissible time limit. We have already seen Section 11 which deals with ryotwari patta to ryots in ryoti lands. Section 12 to 14 deal with grant of ryotwari patta to landholders in respect of his/her private lands in zamindari estates (Section 12) Inam estate (Section 13), Tenure estate (Section 14).

¶23In so far as Sections 12 to 14 are concerned, Section 15 provides for an appeal to be filed. However, in so far Section 11 is concerned, there is no express provision available in the statute enabling an aggrieved land holder or a ryot to prefer an appeal. Here Section 5 of the Act would assume relevance. Section 5 runs as follows:

¶5Appointment and functions of Settlement Officer. - (1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Government shall appoint one or more Settlement Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under this Act.

(2) Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal.

¶24It is clear that an order passed under Section 11 can be sought to be cancelled or revised before the Director. Now, we proceed to discuss various G.Os issued under the act.

¶25In and by G.O.Ms.No.3190, Revenue dated the 17.10.1955 which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- "Rules Under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 Published vide Notification No. G. O. No. 1685, Revenue, dated 25th June 1949 Last Updated 22nd May, 2019 [tn438] Rules For Determination of Inam Estates and Date of Creation of Under-Tenure Estates [G. O. No. 3190, Revenue, dated the 17th October, 1955.] In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67(2)(d) of the [Tamil Nadu] (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ([Tamil Nadu] Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of [Tamil Nadu] hereby makes the following rule: - Revision petitions against the orders of an Assistant Settlement Officer under section 11 of the said Act shall be presented to the Settlement Officer concerned within fifteen days from the date of conduct of Rough Patta Objection Hearing or the date of publication of this notification, whichever is later, in the areas where section 11, enquiries have already been conducted separately under the old procedure and within thirty days of the conduct of final settlement Enquiry or within fifteen days of the date of publication of this notification, whichever is later, in areas where section 11 enquiries are conducted with the Rough Patta Objection Hearing under the new procedure. Further, revision petitions shall lie to the Director of Settlements and the [Board of Revenue] against the orders of the Settlement Officer and the Director of Settlements, respectively, within thirty days of the date of their respective orders. [Subject to the provisions of the Act and this rule, every revision petition presented to the authorities or officers, having jurisdiction under this rule, after the period of limitation prescribed therefore in this rule, shall be dismissed although limitation has not been a set up is a defence. No such revision petition filed shall be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefore in this rule on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within such period.]

¶26In so far as Section 11, ryotwari pattas are concerned, a 30 day period for filing an appeal was stipulated and in so far as Section 12 to 14, 3 months period came to be stipulated. Thereafter, in and by G.O.Ms.No.1400 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 21.11.1975, time for preferring appeals was extended, however, without any limitation which is extracted hereunder, for ready reference:- GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Abstract Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion in to Ryowari) Act. 1948-Rules under sections 11,18,19 19A, 65 & 67 of the Act - Amendments - Issued. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT. G.O.Ms.No 1400 Dated. 21.11.75 Read :

¶1From the Board of Revenue (Settlement, B.P.1918 dated 29.8.74.

¶2Govt. Memo.No.83508/VIII (1)/ 74-4 Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department & RE dated 1.2.75.

¶3From the Board of Revenue (Settlement) Ref (CI) 2779/76 dated 11.4.75 ---- O R D E R The Notifications in the Annexure to this order will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) C.N.Raghavan, Secretary to Government To The Board of Revenue (Settlement), Madras – 5 (5 copies) The Director of Survey and Settlement, Madras – 5 (5 copies) The Collectors of all Districts. The Registrar, High Court ( With C.L) ( 20 Copies) The Director of Stationery and Printing Madras – 1 for Publication of the notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Copy to Law Department. Copy to IX Section. Copy to CTVIII (1) for action to place on the Table of both Houses of Legislature Copy to CTVIII(2) for watching publication. / True Copy / Forwarded By Order Section Officer (2) ANNEXURE NOTIFICATION - I In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 read with section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Rules published with the Revenue Department Notification at pages 25-26 in the Rules Supplement to Part-I of the Fort St. George gazette, dated the 17th January 1950, as subsequently amended. AMENDMENT In the said rules, in rule 6, for the proviso, the following provisos shall be added, namely. " Provided that the Director or the Board of Revenue may admit an appeal or revision petition as he case may be made after the period aforesaid if he or it is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or revision petition within the said period". NOTIFICATION-II In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 67 read with sections 19 and 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the rule published with the Revenue Department Notification dated the 5th August 1949, at pages 249-250 of the Rules Supplement to Part I of the Fort St, George Gazette, dated the 16th August 1949, as subsequently amended. AMENDMENTS In the said rule, in the Schedule, in the entries in column (3),

(1) against "19 Second Proviso" in column (1), after the provisos to item II (e), the following provisos shall be added, namely. " Provided further that the Board of Revenue or the Government may admit a revision petition presented after the period aforesaid if it or they is or are satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within the said period" and

(2) against '19A" in column (1), after the proviso to item II (e), the following proviso shall be added, namely:- "Provided further that the Board of Revenue or the Government may admit a revision petition presented after the period aforesaid, if it or they, is or are satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within the said period'.

(3) NOTIFICATION - III In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 read with sub - section (2) of section 5, clauses

(c) and (d) of section 7 and sections 18 and 19 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the rules published with the Revenue Department Notification No. SRO A.1226 of 1961 at pages 1269 and 1270 of part V of the Fort St, George Gazette, dated the 13th December 1961, as subsequently amended:- AMENDEMENT In the said rules, in rule 2, to the second paragraph, the following provisos shall be added, namely. " Provided that the Settlement Officer, the Director of Settlements or the Board of Revenue may admit a revision petition preferred after the period aforesaid, if he or it is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period". NOTIFICATION - IV In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 (2) (d) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the rules published with the Revenue Department Notification dated the 17th October, 1955, at page 435 of the Rules supplement to part I of the Fort St. George, Gazette, dated the 19th October, 1955 as subsequently amended. AMENDMENT In the said rule, for the second and third sub-paragraphs the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:- "Provided that the Settlement Officer, the Director of Settlements or the Board of Revenue may admit a revision petition presented after the period aforesaid, if he or it is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within the said period". // True Copy // Section Officer

¶27In order to have proceedings concluded one way or other, G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 was issued, qualifying G.O.Ms.No.1400 dated 21.11.1975. G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 were extracted hereunder for ready reference:- GOVERMENT OF TAMIL NADU Abstract Tamil Nadu state (Abolition a d Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948-Admission of belated appeals and revisions - Amendment to the rules prescribed under Section 63, 19, 19A, 5(2), 7(d) ad 67 (2) (d) of Act withdraw-notifications-Issued. COMMERCIAL TAXES AD RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.714 Dated: 29-6-87 Aari 15, Prabava, Thiruvalluvar Aadu 2018 Read again

¶1G.O. Ms.No. 2043, Revenue, dt. 5.8.49.

¶2G.O.Ms.No, 39,Revenue, dt. 7.1.50

¶3G.O. Ms.No.1393, Revenue, dt. 14.7.69.

¶4G.O.Ms.No. 3261, Revenue, dt. 3.12.61

5.G.O.Ms. No.1393, Revenue dt.14.7.69. Read also:

¶6G.0. Ms. 0.1400, Commercial Taxer and Religious Endowment, dt. 21.11.75.

¶7From the Commissioner for Land Adm.Lr. o.

(K1)12817/80,dt. 15.9.81 and Lr. o. (K1) 7365/82 dt. 20.7.82. ORDER: Consequent on the judgment of the High Court, Madras in Writ Appeal No.98 of 1971, the erstwhile Board of Revenue submitted proposals for amendment of the relevant rules under the Tamil Nadu estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Art, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) so as to provide for admission of Belated appeals or revisions on grounds of the Petitioner haring reasonable cause for not malting the appeals or revisions within the prescribed periods, accepting the suggestion of the erstwhile Board of Revenue, the Government issued orders amending the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into to Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948).

¶2The Government have also afforded certain special concessions by way of grant of patta outside the scope of the Abolition Acts, even after the completion of settlement proceedings and introduction of settlement. The Commissioner for Land Administration has now stated that even then the claims rejected during the "settlement proceedings are reopened within the provisions of the Art by way of a revision petition with petition for condonation of delay. Considering the ample opportunities give to get the claim for land established under the Government Order relating to assignment outside the scope of the Abolition Acts, there is no real need to provide for condonation of delay for consideration of claims under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 after such a long-time lag. He has opined that there, should be some finality to these settlement proceedings and that reopening of closed cares on one ground or other by the authorities by virtue of the lowers conferred on them would only unsettle the settled issues and lard the state in continued litigation and expenditure in contesting such cases in Courts and that he has suggested that the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No.1400 Commercial Tax and Religious Endowments, dt. 21.11.1975 may be suitably modified to that effect.

¶3The Commissioner for Land Administration has also suggested that since a provision for condonation of delay has been made, it is desirable that while withdraw that concession, provision may be made for such procedure, be availed for limited period, after the proposed amendment since the condonation being discretionary, nobody can object on the ground that any right vested in, him had been taken away, an could be the contention if the period for appeal is sought to be interfered with. He has further suggested that as a matter of equity, a limited period, after the amendment equal to the period, upto which the delay canbe condoned in the normal course, may be allowed in the proposed amendments in respect of older cases. The Commissioner of Land Administration has also submitted necessary amendments in this regard.

¶4The Government have examined the proposals of the Commissioner for Land Administration and decided to approve the draft amendments suggested by him with slight modification

¶5The notifications annexed to this order will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) SUKAVA ESHVAR, COMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT //True Copy// ANNEXURE NOTIFICATION - I In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 read with section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Rules published with the Revenue Department Notification at pages 25-26 in the Rules Supplement to Part-I of the Fort St. George gazette, dated the 17th January 1950, as subsequently amended. AMENDMENT In the said rules, in rule 6, for the proviso, the following provisos shall be added, namely. " Provided that the Director or the Commissioner of Land Administration may condone delay upto a period of thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within prescribed time: Provided further that in respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of such publication: Provided also that suo motu powers of the Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 7 of the Act shall not be barred in any case." NOTIFICATION-II In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 67 read with sections 19 and 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the rule published with the Revenue Department Notification dated the 5th August 1949, at pages 249-250 of the Rules Supplement to Part I of the Fort St, George Gazette, dated the 16th August 1949, as subsequently amended. AMENDMENTS In the said rule, in the Schedule, in the entries in column (3), (1) against "19 Second Proviso" in column (1), after the provisos to item II

(e), the following provisos shall be added, namely. "Provided that the Settlement Officer or the Director or the Commissioner of Land Administration may condone delay up to a period of thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within prescribed time: Provided further that in respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of such publication Provided also that suo motu powers of the Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 7 of the Act shall not be barred in any case."

(3) NOTIFICATION - III In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 read with sub - section (2) of section 5, clauses (c) and (d) of section 7 and sections 18 and 19 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the rules published with the Revenue Department Notification No. SRO A.1226 of 1961 at pages 1269 and 1270 of part V of the Fort St, George Gazette, dated the 13th December 1961, as subsequently amended:- AMENDEMENT In the said rules, in rule 2, to the second paragraph, the following provisos shall be added, namely. "Provided that the Settlement Officer or the Director or the Commissioner of Land Administration may condone delay up to a period of thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within prescribed time: Provided further that in respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of such publication Provided also that the powers of the Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 7 of the Act shall not be barred in any case." NOTIFICATION - IV In exercise of the powers conferred by section 67 (2) (d) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the rules published with the Revenue Department Notification dated the 17th October, 1955, at page 435 of the Rules supplement to part I of the Fort St. George, Gazette, dated the 19th October, 1955 as subsequently amended. AMENDMENT In the said rule, for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:- "Provided that the Settlement Officer or the Director or the Commissioner of Land Administration may condone delay up to a period of thirty days beyond the period aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not presenting the petition within prescribed time: Provided further that in respect of cases disposed of prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, the period of thirty days shall be counted from the date of such publication Provided also that suo motu powers of the Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 7 of the Act shall not be barred in any case." // True Copy // SUKAVA ESHVAR, COMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT //True Copy//

¶28The said G.O.Ms.No.714 CT & RE Department dated

29.06.1987 was issued by fixing one time window of 30 days for preferring appeal/revisions and the said period ended on 20th August 1987, thus fixing a last day to apply for condonation of delay under Section 11. Therefore, any opportunity to apply for ryotwari patta under Section 11 either stood extinguished by 30.06.1975 or 20th August 1987 which provided another opportunity to make an application with condonation of delay. On and from 21.08.1987, no authority, be it the appellate forum or the revisional authority, namely The Director of Survey and Settlement or the Commissioner of Land Administration had any power to condone delay in making an application for grant of ryotwari patta or to even remand a matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer or the Settlement Officer for any enquiry in connection with grant of ryotwari patta. It is needless to state that the revenue authorities, namely the Tahsildar or VAO also have absolutely no power to entertain or issue ryotwari pattas, usurping the powers of the Assistant Settlement Officer/ Settlement Officer.

¶29Coming back to the facts of the present case, in so far as the determination of 44.51 acres under Section 15, in terms of Section 15(1), the appellant's mother/the appellant ought to have filed an appeal within 2 months from the date of order passed in 1957 to the special tribunal constituted for such purpose. Even the tribunal had a discretion to condone a delay only up to a period of 6 months. In fact the import of Section 15 also makes it abundantly clear that the decision of the tribunal on an appeal filed under Section 15 (1) was final and not liable to questioned in any Court of law. On a conjoint reading of the scheme of the Act and the various provisions as well as the Government Orders, it is clear that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be no relevance or application to proceedings under the Act 26 of 1948, especially when the enactment itself has built in provision for specific periods of delay to be condoned. Admittedly neither the appellant's mother nor the appellant challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1957 and they lost their right as soon as the limitation period of 2 months, extendable upto another 6 months also lapsed. Thus, there was absolutely no useful purpose in reopening a concluded matter, by merely sending representations touching the very same subject matter. It is a classic case of "flogging a dead horse". The Writ Court has rightly reviewed its earlier order dated 25.04.2014 and allowed the review petition and dismissed the Writ petition. The contempt petition was also rightly closed, holding that when the order in the Writ petition had been reviewed, there can be no wilful or deliberate disobedience complained of. A writ of mandamus can ordinarily be issued only where a legal right exists for the petitioner. In cases like these, where the appellant as writ petitioner had lost its right several decades ago, the courts would not come to their rescue of such litigants by issuing a fiat of writ of mandamus. We do not find any reasons warranting interference with the common order passed by the Writ Court. In fine, the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.K.K.J) & (P.B.B.J)

27.09.2023 Internet: Yes Index:Yes/No mjs To

1.The Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2.The District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur

3.The District Revenue Officer (DRO) Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur

4.The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J mjs/kpr Pre-delivery judgment in W.A.Nos.1903,1918 and 1919 of 2018 & W.A.Sr..104222 of 2018

27.09.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 14.08.2023 Delivered on: 27.09.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI W.A.Nos.1903,1918 and 1919 of 2018 & W.A.Sr..104222 of 2018 & C.M.P.Nos.9088/2022, 15459,21808 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.21741 & 21743 of 2021 W.A.No.1903 of 2018 1.P.Venkata Rao (died on 15.05.2017) rep by his General Power of Attorney Mr.A.K.K.Elangovan S/o A.Karuppusamy No.3-K, Kellys Road, Ranipet-632 401 Vellore District 2.P.Gopal ....... Appellants in W.A. No.1903 of 2018 Vs. 1.The Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur .... Respondents in W.A. No.1903 of 2018 (Cause title accepted vide order dated 14.03.2018 made in C.M.P.Nos. 5151,5152 and 5162 of 2018) PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016 W.A.No.1918 of 2018 1.P.Venkata Rao (died) rep by his General Power of Attorney Mr.A.K.K.Elangovan S/o A.Karuppusamy No.3-K, Kellys Road, Ranipet-632 401 Vellore District 2.P.Gopal ....... Appellants in W.A. No.1918 of 2018 Vs. 1.Tata Communications Limited having registered office at VSB, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 and Chennai Office at No.4, Swami Sivanandasalai, Chennai-600 002 Rep by its Deputy General Manager Mr.N.Kesava Prasad 2.Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 3.The District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur .. Respondents in W.A. No.1918 of 2018 (Cause title accepted vide order dated 14.03.2018 made in C.M.P.Nos. 5151,5152 and 5162 of 2018) PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in Review Petition No.197 0f 2015 in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016. W.A.No.1919 of 2018 1.P.Venkata Rao (died) rep by his General Power of Attorney Mr.A.K.K.Elangovan S/o A.Karuppusamy No.3-K, Kellys Road, Ranipet-632 401 Vellore District 2.P.Gopal ....... Appellant in W.A. No.1918 of 2018 Vs. 1.Videsh Sanchar Nigam Employees Co-operative Housing Society represented by its President Mr.Joseph Manoharan No.4, Swami Sivanandasalai Chennai-600 0002 2.Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 3.The District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur .. Respondents in W.A. No.1919 of 2018 (Cause title accepted vide order dated 14.03.2018 made in C.M.P.Nos. 5151,5152 and 5162 of 2018) PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in Review Petition No.210 of 2015 in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016. W.A.Sr.No.104222 of 2018 P.Gopal ....... Appellant Vs. 1.Tata Communications Limited having registered office at VSB, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 and Chennai Office at No.4, Swami Sivanandasalai, Chennai-600 002 Rep by its Deputy General Manager Mr.N.Kesava Prasad 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Revenue Secretary Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 3.The District Revenue Officer (DRO) Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur 4.Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District .. Respondents in W.A.Sr.No.104222 of 2018 PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23739 of 2014 dated 02.03.2017. For Appellants in all the cases: : Mr. P.V.Muralidhar for Mr.Ilaya Perumal For Respondents : : Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader [for R1 & 2 in W.A.No.1903 of 2018] [for R2 & 3 in W.A. No.1918&1919 of 2018] [for R2 to 4 in W.A.Sr.No.104222 of 2018] Ms. A.Sella Visalakshi for petitioner in C.M.P.No.21741 of 2021 Mr.C.Mohan for M/s.King & Partridge for R1 in W.A.No.1918/2018 Mr.K.Ravishankar Rao for R1 (VSNL) in W.A.No.1919 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.) All these Writ appeals arise against a common