High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 3-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.Nos.19421 and 19848 of 2007andMP Nos.2 and 2 of 2007S.Bhoominathan.. Petitioner in WP 19421/20071.S.Sankar2.P.Ramasamy3.Lakshmi Ammal4.Saravanan5.G.Ramachandran6.P.Subramani7.A.Kannan8.A.Kalidoss9.A.Babu10.A.Balan11.K.Viswanathan12.K.Ramachandran13.K.Elumalai14.K.Venkateswaran15.T.Kandan16.T.Karunakaran17.R.Krishnan18.M.Krishnamoorthy19.R.Bakiaraj20.M.Rajendran21.S.Kumar22.K.Raman23.R.Lakshmi24.R.Thirumalai25.R.Muniyandi alias R.Chandran.. Petitioners in WP 19848/2007 vs1.The Special Commissioner andDirector of Survey and Settlement Surveyagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2.The District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai... Respondents in both petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised inproceedings D.O.R.C.No.14095/2006/B1 on the file of the DistrictCollector, Tiruvallur, the second respondent, dated 16.5.2007, and quashthe same.For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ayyadurai in both wpsFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun in both wps COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern these two writ petitions in WP Nos.19421 and19848 of 2007.2.The petitioners herein have sought for a writ of certiorari toquash the proceedings of the second respondent in D.O.R.C.No.14095/2006/B1dated 16.5.2007.3.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and alsothe learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. Theaffidavits in support of the petitions are perused. 4.The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased therespective landed properties in Survey Nos.103/1 to 4, 92/1, 195, 170/2,243, 175, 287, 44/1, 236, 240/1 & 2, 242/1 & 2, 255/3, 265/1 & 2 and 167situate in Puzhal Village of Tiruvallur District from the previous owners;that on purchase, they were actually put in possession of the respectiveproperties; that they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment ofthe same; that they came to know that the properties were classified asGovernment Poramboke and found so in the revenue accounts; that under thecircumstances, they applied for the issuance of patta under the provisionsof the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act1948 (Act 26 of 1948); that the Assistant Settlement Officer,Tiruvannamalai, after making a due inspection, directed the Tahsildar toissue ryotwari patta in terms of Sec.11(a) of Act 26 of 1948; thataccordingly, the concerned Tahsildar passed orders for issuance of pattaafter rectifying the entry namely Government poramboke – dry – Tharisu;that while the matter stood thus, the Special Commissioner and Director ofSurvey and Settlement, the first respondent herein, issued a show causenotice on 21.9.2005 to the petitioners calling for explanation why theorder of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 20.7.2000, should not becancelled for certain irregularities noticed therein; that the petitionerstendered their explanation; that there was no enquiry at all, and noorders were passed; that while so, the District Collector, the secondrespondent herein, has passed an order on 16.5.2007, directing theTahsildar, the third respondent herein, to effect changes in the villageaccounts in relation to the lands in question by deleting theclassification of the lands as ryotwari patta lands into Governmentporamboke on or before 31.5.2007; that a copy of that order was served by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ way of public notice; that it was not even served upon the petitioner, andhence, they have approached this Court for the relief asked for.5.In support of the petitions, the learned Counsel Mr.V.Ayyadurai,would submit that in the instant case, once there was an inspection madeby the Assistant Settlement Officer following the application made by thepetitioners for the issuance of patta under Act 26 of 1948 and orders havealso been passed by that authority, the Tahsildar concerned has passedorders for issuance of patta by deleting the classification of the landsfound in the revenue records as Government poramboke – dry – Tharisu; thatafter the orders have been passed, there was a show cause notice issued bythe first respondent why the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officershould not be cancelled; that there was a reply given by them; that it ispertinent to point out that neither there was an enquiry, nor orders werepassed; that the petitioners were under the impression that the matter waspending before the first respondent; that while the matter stood thus, nowthe orders have been passed by the second respondent issuing a directionto the third respondent Tahsildar to change the classification of thelands from ryotwari patta to Government poramboke; that if the said orderis given effect to, then all the pattas issued in favour of thepetitioners, would be cancelled even without any enquiry; that it is notonly a case where the principles of natural justice were offended, butalso a case where the orders have been passed without following theprocedural formalities and also against law, and hence, it has got to beset aside.6.Added further the learned Counsel that the show cause notice wasissued by the first respondent on 21.9.2005; but, the order which isreferred to by the second respondent the District Collector, in theimpugned order, is one which emanated from the Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Administration; that he was not the authority whoissued the show cause notice, and hence, no orders could have been passedby the first respondent in view of the fact that no reference is made bythe second respondent in the order under challenge with regard to anyorder passed by the first respondent. 7.Contrary to the above contentions, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader would submit that the show cause notice was issued bythe first respondent on 21.9.2005 calling upon the petitioners to tendertheir explanation within a period of 15 days, why the order of theAssistant Settlement Officer on the basis of which pattas were ordered tobe issued by the Tahsildar, should not be cancelled; but, the petitionershave given their explanations, admittedly, in the month of July 2006 andthus, the explanations were given out of time; that the first respondenthas passed the orders cancelling the orders of the Assistant SettlementOfficer dated 20.7.2000; that on communication of the said order, thepresent order has been passed by the second respondent directing theTahsildar to delete the classification of the lands as ryotwari patta andto rectify it as Government poramboke; that the order of the secondrespondent under challenge would clearly indicate that on the basis of theletter issued by the first respondent, it has been passed; that there wasa proper enquiry conducted by the first respondent; that following thesame, orders have been passed; that a copy of the said order was alsosubmitted to the second respondent on the basis of which the secondrespondent has passed the order which is under challenge, and under suchcircumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made,and carefully looked into the materials available. After doing so, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that the petitioners in both the writpetitions are entitled for the reliefs asked for.9.It is not in controversy that following the inspection made by theAssistant Settlement Officer on the lands in question, orders were passedby him on 20.7.2000 under Act 26 of 1948 namely Tamil Nadu Estates(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, observing that thoselands were classified as Government poramboke – dry – Tharisu mistakenly,and hence, pattas were to be issued. Accordingly, the Tahsildar inexercise of the powers and the directions issued by the AssistantSettlement Officer, has passed orders for issuance of patta by hisproceedings dated 27.9.2002, 27.11.2002 and 30.1.2003 respectively. It ispertinent to point out that the orders passed by the Tahsildar forissuance of patta are actually in force. Pending the same, the firstrespondent issued a show cause notice on 20.7.2000. It is also not incontroversy that there was a reply by the petitioners, though it wasbelatedly given. It remains to be stated that the present communicationaddressed by the Collector to the Tahsildar to change the classificationof lands from ryotwari patta to Government poramboke does not refer to anyorder passed by the first respondent; but, it refers to only the order ofthe Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration.Further, it is pertinent to point out that before the passing of thepresent order, there is nothing to show that any enquiry was conducted bythe first respondent to arrive at a conclusion or to set aside the orderspassed by the Assistant Settlement Officer branding it as a fraudulent oneor the pursuant orders passed by the Tahsildar. It is further to bepointed out that the District Collector has passed the impugned orderwithout even conducting an enquiry. Thus, it would be quite evident thatat no point of time, the petitioners were given any opportunity of beingheard. Even assuming that the first respondent has passed the order, itcannot stand in law. Likewise, even if the order of the DistrictCollector, the second respondent, is consequential, the same also cannotstand in law. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the consideredopinion that without making an enquiry or giving an opportunity of beingheard, orders have been passed by the first respondent deleting theclassification of the lands as ryotwari patta lands which would be nothingbut defeating the rights of the petitioners in whose favour already ordershave been passed by the concerned Tahsildar for issuance of ryotwari pattapursuant to the inspection made by the Assistant Settlement Officer. 10.Apart from the above, even assuming that the orders of theTahsildar were to be set aside in view of the irregularities alleged tohave been committed by him, the law requires that an enquiry has got to bemade by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners in view of theorders already passed in their favour. Hence, both the first respondentand the second respondent have neither followed the procedural formalitiesnor afforded to the petitioners sufficient opportunity of being heard.Thus, it is a case where this Court is able to see that the impugned ordercannot stand. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, it is made clear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the orders passed above, will not stand in the way of the firstrespondent taking up the matter and pass suitable orders after giving thepetitioners sufficient opportunity of being heard at the time of theenquiry to be conducted before passing suitable orders as the law wouldrequire so. 11.In the result, both the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposedof. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.nsv/Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Special Commissioner andDirector of Survey and Settlement Surveyagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2.The District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai.+1 cc to Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Advocate Sr.No.61080.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.61229.VC(CO)dcp/8.10WP Nos.19421 and19848 of 2007