Geetha v. The District Collector

O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 25.02.2016 bearing reference No.Nimu.A3.1386/2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶2By the impugned order dated 25.02.2016, the second respondent has cancelled the assignment of the land that had been given to the petitioner's predecessor earlier and the patta that was issued in favour of the petitioner's vendor.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, would submit that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by a decision of the Page No. 2 of 14 Division Bench of this Court in T.Thirumalai Gounder and another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Land Administration, Chennai and others, 2010-5-L.W.289. Specifically, a reference was made to paragraphs 13 and 16 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:- "13.There is no dispute that the property could be transferred with the permission of the revenue authorities. When the Revenue authorities own their own motion and by accepting the sale deed dt.

16.5.1967 endorsed the ownership of the first appellant and mutated the revenue entries in his name, such transfer should be considered to be an act of permission for assigning the land. The revenue authorities having passed orders for mutation of revenue records, cannot be permitted subsequently to cancel the very assignment on the ground that there was no prior permission from the revenue authorities for transfer of assignment. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer Virudhachalam was not justified in cancelling the assignment in favour of the first appellant. ........

¶16The Revenue authorities having endorsed the transfer made by Thiru. Kandasamy in favour of the first appellant, should not have entertained the petition filed by the 5th respondent after a period of 21 years. The appellants are illiterate villagers and admittedly, they have no other property. They are eking their livelihood from the income which they receive by cultivation. The land has changed hands on many occasions and the final transfer was in Page No. 3 of 14 favour of the first appellant. The possession of the property by the predecessor-in-interest of the first appellant and later by the first appellant, were known to the village officers. It was only in such circumstances, they have mutated the revenue records and the first appellant was shown as person in possession of the property doing cultivation."

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very same order passed by the second respondent has already been quashed by this Court in a parallel proceedings, vide order dated 17.06.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No.59 of 2017, in the case of M.Vijayavennila Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Incharge), Sivagangai Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Office, Sivagangai).

¶5On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land in question was originally assigned to 19 assignees. It is submitted that though there was prohibition under the relevant Revenue Standing Order No.15 as amended by G.O.Ms No.2485, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1979, the land in question had been sold by the assignees to various vendors. G.O.Ms No.2485, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1979 reads as under:- Page No. 4 of 14 Abstract ASSIGNMENT – Land – Alienation of assigned lands – B.S.O.15-12(3)(1) – Amendment – Ordered. ------ Read: Govt. memo. No.61292 F2/76-11, Rev. dt. 21.6.77. Read also: From the Board of Revenue (LR) Ref.B1/6794/79-1, dt.4.10.79. ---- G.O.Ms.No.2485 Dt. 9.11.1979 ====================================== ORDER: In their memo, first read above, the Government accepted the views of the Full Board and directed that there was no need to extend the time limit beyond the existing period of 10 years prescribed under B.S.O.15-12(3)(1) for alienating the lands assigned under B.S.O.15 but subject to the condition that in the event of the assignee wishing to dispose of the land after the above period, he should get the prior permission of either the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, who should give permission only, if the sale is to one of the categories eligible for assignment of Government waste lands for cultivation purposes. The Government also requested the Board to take steps to incorporate the above instructions in the B.S.O.

¶2The Board of Revenue (LR) has sent draft amendment to B.S.O.15-12(3)(1). The Govt. accept the draft amendment suggested by the Board of Page No. 5 of 14 Revenue (LR) and direct that the amendment as indicated in the Annexure to this order be issued to B.S.O.15-12(3)(1).

¶3The Board of Revenue (LR) is requested to issue correction slips to B.S.O.15 and to send 10 copies of the correction slips to Government. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. To The Board of Revenue (LR), Madras-5. All Collections/D.R.Os. Copy to Revenue (A), (D), (J), (M) & (P) Sections. ANNEXURE AMENDMENT In Board Standing Orders, in order 15, to clause

(1) of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 12, the following shall be added at the end, namely:- "The assigned lands may be alienated after the period of ten years, but subject to the condition that in the event of the assignee wishing to dispose of the land after the above period, he should get prior permission of either the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, who should give permission only, if the sale is to one of the categories eligible for assignment of Government waste lands for cultivation purposes". /True copy/ Section Officer Page No. 6 of 14

¶6As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner purchased the property measuring an extent of 15.85 Hectares, from one Amudha Devi, vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.12.2005 bearing Doc.No.2545 of 2005. The said vendor had earlier purchased the same from the Original Assignees despite the restrictions under the amended Clause to the aforesaid Revenue Standing Order No.15.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and was unaware of the restrictions regarding the land and therefore, there is no justification in cancellation of the patta granted to the petitioner's vendor, namely Amudha Devi.

¶8It is submitted that once the Revenue Authority had mutated the revenue records, the question of cancelling the standing patta either in the name of the petitioner's vendor or in the name of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

¶9In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following judgments:- Page No. 7 of 14 i. K.S.Jarina Vs. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and others, dated 03.08.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.9335 of 2013. ii. M.S.A.Musthafa Ibrahim and another Vs. The Principal

Secretary/Commissioner

of

Land Administration (FAC) and Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chennai and others, dated 24.06.2022 in W.P.(MD) Nos.8799 and 11231 of 2017.

10.The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. It is submitted that the fourth respondent herein had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2013, wherein the fourth respondent herein had prayed for a direction to the official respondents to take action against the private respondents therein.

¶11It is submitted that in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioner was the fifth respondent, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.59 of 2017 was the seventh respondent and the petitioner's vendor, Amudha Devi was the sixth respondent.

¶12It is submitted that the land was meant for agricultural purpose for the benefit of the landless peasants/labourers to give them a dignity of Page No. 8 of 14 life under the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a agriculturist of the land and the land is remaining as Tharisu (dry – uncultivated land).

¶13It is submitted that the land has been purchased by the persons from outside the State and has been used for production and storage of charcoal, which is contrary to the purpose, for which the lands were being assigned to the landless peasants/labourers by the Revenue Standing Order of the Government. In this connection, a reference was made to the following paragraph from the impugned order:- "NkNy fz;l Gy vz;fs; epy xg;gil ngw;w egu;fs; xg;gil ngw;w Njjpapy; ,Ue;J ehsJ Njjp tiu rhFgb nra;ahky;> jupR epykhf ,Ue;Js;sJ. xg;gil ngw;w epyj;ij ntsp khtl;lj;ijr; Nru;e;j trjp gilj;j egu;fSf;F fpiuak; nfhLj;Js;sdu;. xg;gil ngw;w epyj;ij fpiuak; ngw;w egu;fs; rhFgb nra;ahky;> Nkw;gb ,lj;jpy; fup %l;lk; njhopy; elj;jp tUtJ tprhuizapy; njupa tUfpwJ. xg;gil

ngw;wtu;fSf;F

Nehl;b]; mDg;gg;gl;ljpy;> fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; Nkw;gb xg;giljhuu;fs; vtUk; Cupy; ,y;iy vd;W mwpf;if nra;Js;shu; murhizapy; fz;Ls;s tpjpfspd;gb gpd;gw;whkYk; ntsp khtl;lj;ij Nru;e;j trjp gilj;j egu;fSf;F fpiuak; nfhLj;Js;sjhYk; xU rpy egu;fs; epy xg;gil ngw;w ehspy; ,Ue;J ,Jehs; tiu xg;gil ngw;w epyj;jpy; gapu; itj;J rhFgb nra;ahky; jupR epykhf itj;Js;sjhYk;> xg;gil tpjp kPwy; kw;Wk; epge;jid kPwy; cs;sjhy; Nkw;gb Page No. 9 of 14 epy xg;gilia uj;J nra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. ,t;Tj;jputpd; kPJ Nky;KiwaPL nra;a tpUk;gpdhy;> ,t;Tj;jpuT fpilf;fg;ngw;w 30 ehl;fSf;Fs; rptfq;if khtl;l tUtha; mYtyUf;F Nky;KiwaPL nra;J nfhs;syhk; vd;w tpguk; kDjhuUf;Fk; vjpu;kDjhuUf;Fk; njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ."

¶14I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the first to third respondents and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

¶15The issue for consideration in the Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to perfect the title on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land, particularly when there was mutation of records pursuant to the first sale in favour of the petitioner's vendor on

18.09.2000, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in T.Thirumalai Gounder's case referred supra, which has been followed by this Court on earlier occasion in M.Vijayavennila's case referred supra, who was the seventh respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 3010 of 2013 filed by the fourth respondent herein, pursuant to which, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent herein. Page No. 10 of 14

¶16The impugned order has not clearly given the details of the date of assignment of lands in Survey Nos.18/1A1, 18/1A2, 18/1A3, 18/1A4, 18/1A5, 18/1A6, 18/1A7, 18/1A8, 18/1A9, 18/1A10, 18/1A11, 18/1A12, 18/1A13 & 18/1A14, to the original assignees and the date of subsequent sales and patta issued by the Revenue Authorities to the subsequent buyers/purchasers who have alienated the lands to the petitioner.

¶17The alienation of the lands has been contested, notwithstanding the fact that such alienation was made without permission of the Revenue Authorities, as per the Government Order. Such alienation of the land violated the conditions by altering its agricultural purpose. The impugned order indicates that the land is not being used for agricultural purposes, thereby deviating from the intended purpose for which the assignments were made by the Government for the benefit of landless peasants. The impugned order also indicates that the petitioner is using the land for the storage of coal as a coalyard.

¶18The land in question appears to be rendered as a dry land even though it was classified as 'punja land' as per the impugned order. Page No. 11 of 14 Therefore, the cancellation of the patta vide the impugned order does not call for any interference. The agricultural land cannot be converted into commercial land by persons even if they do not intend to cultivate the said land. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the present Writ Petition.

¶19The decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in T.Thirumalai Gounder's case referred supra, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as in the present case, there is a conversion of the agricultural land into a non-agricultural land.

¶20In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

25.07.2024 Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order MM/JEN Copy To:

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. Page No. 12 of 14

2.The District Backward Class & Minority Welfare Officer cum Sivagangai Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, K.K.Pallam Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. Page No. 13 of 14 C.SARAVANAN

, J.

JEN and W.M.P.(MD) No.15296 of 2016

25.07.2024 Page No. 14 of 14

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 07.06.2024 Delivered on 25.07.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.15296 of 2016 Geetha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The District Backward Class & Minority Welfare Officer cum Sivagangai Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, K.K.Pallam Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. 4.P.Ramasamy ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Page No. 1 of 14 impugned order made by the second respondent in Nimu.A3.1386/2012 dated 25.02.2016 and quashing the same as illegal. For Petitioner : M/s.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 to R3 : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.S.Ramesh *****