The Special Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 v. M.Arumugam,24, Parvathy Ammon Nagar Kolathur, Chennai 600 099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :16.04.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANandTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARW.A.No.326 of 2007 and MP No.1 of 2007The Special Commissioner & Directorof Survey and Settlement,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005...Appellant/RespondentVs.M.Arumugam,24, Parvathy Ammon NagarKolathur, Chennai 600 099 ... Respondent/PetitionerThis Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patentto set aside the Order dated 14.07.2006 passed by the Hon'bleMr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian in W.P.No.17082 of 2006.For Appellant : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Special Government PleaderFor Respondent: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappa O R D E R(The order of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan)This appeal is directed at the instance of Special Commissionerand Director of Survey and Settlement as against the Order inW.P.17082/2006 dated 14.07.2006 whereby the Writ Petition was allowedafter quashing the order impugned in the writ petition presentedunder Article 226 of the constitution of india to issue a Writ ofCertiorari calling for the records relating to the respondentsproceedings dated 21.4.2006, made in Ne.Wu.Ac.Na.Na.No.7014/05 bycancelling the patta with respect to the land in Survey No.11(part), T.S.No.2 (Part), Block No.4, over an extent of 8432, sq.meters in 65 Kolathur Village, Perambur, Purasawalkam Taluk, ChennaiDistrict.2. The writ petition came to be filed on the ground that therespondent by name M.Arumugam and one Thiru.Srinivasan purchased anextent of 3.14 acres of land in Survey No.11(part), Block No.4,T.S.No.2(part) situate in No.65, Kolathur Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai, from M/s. M.Subramani and S.Vasantha fora valuable consideration as per the registered sale deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

05.08.1981. In the year 1999, the Tahsildar, Perambur-PurasawalkamTaluk inspected the land and sent a report to the District Collectorstating that the entire land is Inam Estate. As the respondent was inpossession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 30 years, thelands were re-classified as Anatheenam, Eri Ulvoi. Hence on anapplication made by the respondent to the Assistant SettlementOfficer, Tiruvannamalai, patta was granted 29.06.2000 for an extentof 2.1 ½ cents of the land. The said patta was sought to becancelled by the appellant/Special Commissioner and Director ofSurvey and Settlement by order dated 21.04.2006 invoking suo motopower under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations, Estates andInam Abolition and Ryotwari Settlement Act, 1948.3. The said Order of the Special Commissioner and Director ofSurvey and Settlement was questioned in the Writ Petition on twogrounds namely that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no suomoto power under Section 5(2) of the Act to cancel the patta grantedby the Assistant Settlement Officer and secondly, in any event showcause notice dated 21.09.2005 was issued by the The SpecialCommissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement calling upon thepetitioner as to why the grant of patta should not be cancelled. Therespondent was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 15days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. The saidshow cause notice was received by the Respondent on 11.02.2006 and areply was sent within 15 days i.e., on 20.02.2006. Though the saidreply was acknowledged on 22.02.2006, the explanation has not beenconsidered and in fact the Special Commissioner and Director ofSurvey and Settlement has gone to the extent of denying the receiptof such reply.4. The writ petition came to be dismissed following the judgmentin "The Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. R.Ramadoss reported in1992(2) LW 265 holding that the Director of Survey and Settlement hasno suo moto power under Section 5(2), to revise the order ofSettlement Officer.5. The above order is questioned in this Writ Appeal by thestate. 6. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, the learned Special Government Pleaderhas brought to our notice a judgment of a full bench of this courtreported in 2007(4) CTC 538 wherein it has been held in The SpecialCommissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M.Arumugam hassuo moto power. When this Writ Appeal was taken into considerationearlier, in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court inM.Veeraswamy Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of LandAdministration in 1996 WLR 554 holding that such power is availablefor the Director of Survey and Settlement, the Writ Appeal wasreferred to a larger bench for consideration. Ultimately a fullbench of this court in the judgment reported in 2007 (4) CTC 538 hasheld that the judgment in Ramadoss case did not lay out correct law.Consequently the judgment in Veeraswamy’s case was approved. Hencethe learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the abovesaid full bench judgment, the reasoning of the learned single judgeis unsustainable and accordingly the Writ Appeal should be allowed. 7. We have heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above submission of the learned Special Government Pleader. Thelearned Senior Counsel has fairly submitted that he has no answer asthe issue is covered by the full bench judgment.8. However, the learned Senior Counsel would submit as the WritPetition came to be disposed only on the ground of jurisdictionalissue for the Director of Survey and Settlement to consider the grantof patta, suo moto and cancel it, issue as to the failure to considerthe explanation was not considered. 9. We have carefully considered the above submissions. In so faras the power of the Director of Survey and Settlement to suo moto,consider and revise the grant of patta in exercise of power underSection 5(2) of the Act is concerned, the very issue has been decidedby the full bench in the present Writ Appeal itself and therefore thechallenge to the impugned order on the ground of want of jurisdictionhas to be rejected.10. In so far as the second submission as to the non-consideration of the explanation is concerned, paragraph 8(c) of thegrounds in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, thepetitioner has specifically mentioned that the show cause noticedated 21.09.2005 was responded and the explanation was also receivedby the Director of Survey and Settlement on 22.02.2006. Placingreliance on the above, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attentionto the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement dated21.04.2006 wherein it is stated that though the show cause notice wasserved on the respondent on 11.02.2006, there was no explanation.Hence the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Director ofSurvey and Settlement did not consider the explanation and thereforethe order questioned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside.11. We have also heard on the above submission. A perusal of thegrounds made in paragraph 8(c), as pointed out by the learned SeniorCounsel would show that the explanation to the show cause notice wassent and the same was received on 22.02.2006 i.e, within 15 days fromthe date of receipt of the said show cause notice and much before theimpugned order was passed on 21.04.2006. However, the SpecialCommissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has disputed eventhe receipt of such explanation thereby indicating that he did notconsider the explanation at all. Once a show cause notice isissued, it is only reasonable for the Director of Survey andSettlement to advert to the objections filed by the grantee of pattabefore any order is passed. Moreover, before an adverse order ispassed, it is incumbent on the part of the authority passing suchorder to call for an objection / explanation and if suchobjections/explanations are received, they must be considered. Inview of the above, failure to consider the objections before passingthe impugned order by which the patta granted in favour of therespondent dated 29.06.2000 is canceled after a period of more than 5years. On this ground alone the order impugned in the petition isliable to be set aside. Accordingly the said order is set aside andthe matter is remitted back to the Special Commissioner and Directorof Survey and Settlement to pass fresh orders after considering theexplanation dated 20.02.2006 received by him on 22.02.2006 and passfresh orders in accordance with law within a period of three months https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after affording a personal hearing to the Respondent. Consequently,the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12. The respondent is also directed to furnish a copy of theexplanation dated 22.02.2006 to the Director of Survey and Settlementwithin a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder.Sd/- Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarasrToThe Special Commissioner & Directorof Survey and Settlement,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21617+ 1 CC to Mr.M.Muthappan, S.R.No.21661.W.A.No.326 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 2007KSK(CO)SRA (02/05/2008)