2013 Supreme(Mad) 1019

High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
M/s. Amaravathy Cranes and Structurals Ltd., rep by its Director Y. Padmanabha Prasad & Others
Versus
The District Collector, Trivellore District & Others
W.P. Nos. 11317 of 2002, 21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 & 25413 of 2009, 22944 of 2010, 9850, 5144, 5154, 5893, 5976, 6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 9202, 14469, 14586 and 14587 of 2011 & 25372, 5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 & 26731 to 26739 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2009, 1, 2 & 3 of 2010, 1 & 2 of 2011 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2011 & 1 & 2 of 2012
Decided on : 19-02-2013

Headnote:

Writ petitions challenging the order in S.R.Nos.14,15 and 16, dated 23.07.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 deserve to be dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The lands to an extent of 1743 acres in Morai Village were taken over by the District Collector of the Chengalpattu District under Rule 75A(1) of the Defence of India Rules during the Second World War vide proceedings, dated 26.10.1944. After the end of the World War-II, lands were de-requisitioned to the respective land owners. Since the land use pattern was considerably changed, the land owners had decided to sell the lands. Accordingly, the Amaravathy Cranes had purchased the properties from the respective land owners under 39 sale deeds in the year 1965. The Amaravathy Cranes purchased a vast extent of agricultural punja lands comprised in different survey numbers in Morai village by virtue of sale deeds. It was claimed that ever since the purchase, the company was in possession and enjoyment being its absolute owner. The Board of Revenue on 11.09.1967 took a decision to set aside the existing registry made at the time of settlement in respect of the lands and decided to conduct a denova settlement enquiry after complying with the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. A suo motu enquiry was taken up for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of S.No.474/1 onwards in Morai village. The settlement Tahsildar at Chengalpattu was authorised to conduct an enquiry vide notification dated 19.5.1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry and included the land for the grant of ryotwari patta. He had passed an order on 23.7.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 in respect of proceedings in S.R.Nos.14 to 16 of 1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had issued ryotwari patta not only to the Amaravathy Cranes, but also to 46 other persons. The Amaravathy Cranes got ryotwari patta to an extent of 165 acres. In respect of other lands, several other individuals were given patta. No one questioned the ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar to those 46 persons by the same proceedings issued. The other lands were also classsified as assessed waste manavari, cart track poramboke, temple poramboke, assessed waster dry, channel porambokel, puzhakal poramboke and road poramboke. Subsequent to the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram under whose jurisdiction the lands were situated took an action in terms of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. He had published a draft settlement under Section 10(1) of the Land Reforms Act vide gazette notification, dated 25.03.1981 and served the copy on the Amaravathy Cranes. The Amaravathy Cranes had filed its objection before the Authorised officer. The Authorised Officer by virtue of the power under Section 10(5) of the Act had rejected the objection made by the Amaravathy Cranes. The Amaravathy Cranes had filed a revision petition under Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act before the Land Commissioner, Chennai. The revision was also dismissed on the ground of maintainability in view of the appeal available under Section 78 of the Act. Thereafter, the Amaravathy Cranes filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal in LT CMA No.86 of 1991. The appeal was allowed on 04.05.1992 and the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal. After remand, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) had cancelled the final settlement, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.09.1993. Based on the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), the Deputy Secretary to the Government by proceedings, dated 16.02.1994 had cancelled the notification issued by the Revenue Department, dated 21.09.1981. After the gazette notification, necessary changes were carried out in the revenue records and the lands were entered in the name of the Amaravathy Cranes. The company has been in possession of the land and are paying kist upto date to the Government. The Amaravathy Cranes also obtained patta and mutation of records had been effected. The 39 sale deeds under which lands were purchased were genuine. Rajendra Raja group sent a petition, dated 30.10.2009 to the Assistant Settlement Officer alleging that he has grievance over the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu made in the year 1976. Without applying his mind, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued a proceedings, dated 6.11.2009 seeking to conduct an enquiry in the complaint lodged by the Rajendra Raja. The Amaravathy Cranes filed W.P.No.25413 of 2009 and an order of stay was granted on 09.12.2009. All the writ petitions were still ending before this court. The Rajendra Raja group filed various suits in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 before the District Munsif, Ambattur seeking for declaration that the sale deeds executed by the Amaravathy Cranes in favour of third parties are not binding on Rajendra Raja and for a permanent injunction. It is at this juncture, the Amaravathy Cranes has come forward to file civil revision petitions in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1872 to 1910 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to strike out various plaints on the file of the District Munsif, Amabttur.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioners have not satisfactorily explained the long delay of over 3-1/2 decades. The claim of Rajendra Raja group seeking for a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities also does not stand to reason. First of all, with reference to subordinate officers, a time limit has been prescribed by an amendment to the Inam Abolition Rules, 1963 in the year 1987 and this fact was reemphasised by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in his counter affidavit. Even otherwise, if there is any suo motu power available, that itself is subject to exercise based upon reasonable limit.

Issues: Whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the long delay of over 3-1/2 decades. Whether the claim of Rajendra Raja group seeking for a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities stands to reason.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners have not satisfactorily explained the long delay of over 3-1/2 decades. The claim of Rajendra Raja group seeking for a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities also does not stand to reason. First of all, with reference to subordinate officers, a time limit has been prescribed by an amendment to the Inam Abolition Rules, 1963 in the year 1987 and this fact was reemphasised by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in his counter affidavit. Even otherwise, if there is any suo motu power available, that itself is subject to exercise based upon reasonable limit.

Final Decision: All writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions will also stand dismissed.