Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 2917

High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
V.D.S.R. Re. Rolling Mill rep. by its Partners Rajendra Kumar having his office at Tiruvannamalai
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Madras
W.P. NOS. 798 & 799 OF 1992
Decided on: 10-07-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Radha Gopalan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.V. Dhanapalan, AGP.

Ratios
a. Alienation of the land assigned by the Government to a member of the Scheduled caste with a condition restraining alienation would be void ab initio even if such alienation is made after the expiry of 10 years from the date of such assignment.
b. Third party who purchases the land assigned to a member of the Scheduled caste with restriction regarding alienation could not plead ignorance of such condition as defence when the Government takes action to resume the land for breach of the condition regarding alienation.
c. Third party could not challenge the condition imposed by the Government while assigning its land to another.

Headnote:(A)Government Grants Act, 1895(15 of 1895)-Sec.3-Constitution of India- Art. 14, 21, 38, 38(b), 46, 300A-Property-Panchami land-Scheduled caste-Assignment-Transfer-Restriction-Validity-Natural justice-Time limit-Expiry-Petitioner had purchased lands, built up factory in it and had been enjoying them-At that time, the RDO had issued a notice stating that a part of the land was a panchami land that was allotted to a member of the Scheduled caste with a condition prohibiting alienation to others and the sale to the petitioner had violated the condition and sought for its cancellation-Petitioner had represented that it had acquired the land without notice of its nature and after the expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment and so requested the RDO to recommend to the Government to assign it to the petitioner which plea was rejected by the RDO and the land was reclassified as Tharisu which was challenged by the petitioner-While the petitioner contended that it had purchased it after 10 years and without notice of the nature of the assignment and the order was passed by violating the principles of natural justice, respondents resisted the same-Held, lands allotted to the members of the Scheduled caste had to be in their hands forever and even after the expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment, it could not be alienated to persons other than the members of the Scheduled caste-When the facts were unassailable which would lead to only one conclusion, the violation of the principles of natural justice could not be raised as a ground to perpetuate the wrong-As the petitioner had pleaded that it had purchased it without notice and the land in question was assigned with condition restraining alienation to members of other communities, the purchase by the petitioner was against the grant and the order of the Government resuming the land was correct-Necessity of legislation to protect the proprietary interest of the members of the Scheduled caste was emphasized-Legal position governing the panchami lands were discussed-Order under challenge was upheld as valid and the writ petition was dismissed.
       (B)Government Grants Act, 1895(15 of 1895)-Sec.3-Constitution of India- Art. 14, 21, 38, 38(b), 46, 300A-Property-Panchami land-Scheduled caste-Assignment-Transfer-Restriction-Validity-Time limit-Expiry-Alienation of the land assigned by the Government to a member of the Scheduled caste with a condition restraining alienation would be void ab initio even if such alienation is made after the expiry of 10 years from the date of such assignment.
       In case of any contravention or violation of the grant or the Revenue Code, the competent authority is empowered to restore the land from the assignee and retain such lands for the purpose of assignment of land to another deserving person. There is a total prohibition for alienation of the lands assigned to a member of the scheduled caste community to a third party, and that any sale or mortgage, gift etc., contrary to the purpose or for any other incidental transactions, namely, for purchasing agricultural appliances or loan to promote agriculture or for any other lawful purpose, outside the scope and purpose of grant, is not permissible. Any contract executed to a member, who does not belong to Scheduled Caste community, either within or after the completion of 10 years, from the date of assignment, is declared as void abinitio. Para 83
       (C)Government Grants Act, 1895(15 of 1895)-Sec.3-Constitution of India- Art. 14, 38, 38(b), 46, 300A-Property-Panchami land-Scheduled caste-Assignment-Transfer-Restriction-Validity-Natural justice-Third party who purchases the land assigned to a member of the Scheduled caste with restriction regarding alienation could not plead ignorance of such condition as defence when the Government takes action to resume the land for breach of the condition regarding alienation.
       Any person not being a member of the scheduled caste community or tribe, and who purchases the land only acquires a defeasible legal right and he cannot make any grievance of violation of Article 19(1) (F) of the Constitution of India. Such transferee whether the assigned land has been purchased with or without the knowledge of the conditions, does not acquire any title to the property. His right to hold and continue possession and enjoyment is not indefeasible. It also does not confer any right to squat over a property which is liable for resumption to the Government. Para 84
       (D)Government Grants Act, 1895(15 of 1895)-Sec.3-Constitution of India- Art. 14, 300A-Property-Panchami land-Scheduled caste-Assignment-Transfer-Restriction-Validity-Challenge-Third party-Third party could not challenge the condition imposed by the Government while assigning its land to another.
       From the above judgments, even the assignee cannot question the terms and conditions of the assignment made. As stated supra, when the alienation itself is contrary to the conditions of grant and revenue code, opposed to public policy and the constitutional provisions, as held by the Supreme Court, the petitioner who claims to have acquired a derivative title through the purchaser of the assignee, has no legal or statutory right to contend that the conditions imposed in the assignment cannot be enforced against him. When the assignee himself has no legal right to question the conditions of grant, the subsequent purchaser cannot be permitted to contend that he has a better or an absolute right, simply because, he has purchased a land, which is inalienable to third parties. Para 123

Judgment :-

1. In W.P.No.798 of 1993, VDSR Re-rolling Mill, represented by its Partner, Rajendra Kumar, Thiruvanamalai District, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, relating to the impugned order, vide Ka.No.G1 24205/91, dated 19.06.1992, passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai, respondent herein. In W.P.No.799 of 1993, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration, declaring G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue, dated 14.05.1973, as illegal and null and void. As facts and submissions in both the writ petitions are common, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the same, by a common order.

2. According to the deponent, Mr.Rajendra Kumar, partner of the Mill, the firm has purchased the land in Survey No.1826/2B, measuring 0.95 Acres of land in Block No.32, of Ward No.4, Thiruvanamalai District, for consideration, from one "Pandiyan Re-rolling Mills", after due verification of the encumbrance certificate, title over the said property, right of the vendor to sell, convey or alienate, etc. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and that a Mill has also been constructed. While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive a notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, of the erstwhile South-Arcot District, dated 09.08.1984, along with a copy of the order made in B.K.No.1706/32, dated 30.11.1924,passed by the Tahsildar, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, as to why, the assignment made in the year 1924, to a member of the depressed class, should not be cancelled. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, by his proceedings, dated 05.11.1985, cancelled the assignment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Vellore. The said authority, vide Letter No.B2/1007/89, dated 18.03.1991, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 02.05.1991, before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai and that the said authority, while holding that the District Revenue Officer, Vellore, has no jurisdiction to pass an order of cancellation and taking note of G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue, dated 14.05.1973, vide order, dated 19.06.1992, cancelled the assignment made in favour of Subbaraya Pandaram. The order of cancellation, dated 19.06.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973, stated supra, empowering the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai, to cancel the assignment, are challenged in the present writ petitions.

3. Placing reliance on the details of lands, assigned to the Depressed Classes (in short described by the learned counsel as 'DC lands') published by the Tahsildar, Tiruvanamalai, for the year 1955-56, said to have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, and enclosed in the Additional Typed set of papers and on the basis of the averments in the additional affidavit, Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in Old Survey No.1826, measuring an extent of 4 Acres, 8276 Sq.Ft., was initially classified as Tarisu and subsequently, it has been subdivided into T.S.No.1826/2A, measuring 1.57 Acres, T.S.No.1826/2B, measuring 0.95 Acres and T.S.No.1826/2C, measuring 1.67 Acres respectively. She further submitted that the land in T.S.No.1826/2B, has been assigned in favour of one Subbaraya Pandaram. According to her, the said land has been sold to one "Pandian Re-rolling Mills" and from the list of DC lands, published by the Tahsildar, Thiruvanamalai District, for the year 1955 and 1956, the said land in T.S.No.1826 has not been shown as DC land and therefore, the question of cancelling the assignment after 1955, does not arise.

4. Inviting the attention of this Court to the entries in the Town Survey Register, Thiruvanamalai, submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(Mad) 2917

High Court of Judicature at Madras S. MANIKUMAR V.D.S.R. Re. Rolling Mill rep. by its Partners Rajendra Kumar having his office at Tiruvannamalai Versus The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Madras W.P. NOS. 798 & 799 OF 1992 Decided on: 10-07-2012

High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
V.D.S.R. Re. Rolling Mill rep. by its Partners Rajendra Kumar having his office at Tiruvannamalai
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Madras
W.P. NOS. 798 & 799 OF 1992
Decided on: 10-07-2012