Back
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
Writ petitions filed by Amaravathy Cranes and Rajendra Raja group challenging the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North) Chennai dated 23.11.2009 and the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur dated 23.09.2010, respectively, and other related proceedings. The main issue in the writ petitions was whether the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1976 could be reopened after a long lapse of time. The court held that the orders could not be reopened as there was a long delay in filing the writ petitions and the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained the delay. The court also held that the Rajendra Raja group was not entitled to a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities as there was no specific period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of such power and the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time. The court further held that the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing the registering authorities to obtain a `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, before registering any sale deed in respect of certain disputed properties was valid and could not be challenged.
Fact of the Case:
Amaravathy Cranes, a company, purchased agricultural lands in Morai Village in the year 1965. The lands were taken over by the Government under the Defence of India Rules during the Second World War and were de-requisitioned after the war. The company obtained patta and mutation of records in respect of the lands. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue ordered a denova settlement enquiry in respect of the lands. The Assistant Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry and issued ryotwari patta to the company in respect of 165 acres of land. The Rajendra Raja group, who claimed to be the legal heirs of the original owners of the land, challenged the grant of ryotwari patta to the company. They filed a suit in the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the company were null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the company from interfering with their possession of the land. The company filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the suit filed by the Rajendra Raja group. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Rajendra Raja group filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the Rajendra Raja group filed a series of writ petitions in the Madras High Court challenging various orders passed by the settlement authorities and the revenue authorities. The company also filed writ petitions seeking to strike off the plaints in the suits filed by the Rajendra Raja group. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1976 could not be reopened after a long lapse of time as there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the writ petitions. The court also held that the Rajendra Raja group was not entitled to a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities as there was no specific period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of such power and the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time. The court further held that the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing the registering authorities to obtain a `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, before registering any sale deed in respect of certain disputed properties was valid and could not be challenged.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1976 could be reopened after a long lapse of time? 2. Whether the Rajendra Raja group was entitled to a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities? 3. Whether the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing the registering authorities to obtain a `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, before registering any sale deed in respect of certain disputed properties was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1976 could not be reopened after a long lapse of time as there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the writ petitions. The court relied on the following principles: * The principle of laches, which prevents a person from asserting a right after a long delay, applies to writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. * The court has the discretion to dismiss a writ petition if the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. * The court will consider the following factors in determining whether to dismiss a writ petition on the ground of delay and laches: * The length of the delay. * The reason for the delay. * The prejudice caused to the other party by the delay. * In the present case, the court found that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained the delay of over 3-1/2 decades in filing the writ petitions. The court also found that the Rajendra Raja group had been prejudiced by the delay as they had been in possession of the land for many years and had made investments in the land. 2. The court held that the Rajendra Raja group was not entitled to a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities as there was no specific period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of such power and the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time. The court relied on the following principles: * The power of suo motu review is a discretionary power that can be exercised by the settlement authorities. * There is no specific period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of the power of suo motu review. * The power of suo motu review must be exercised within a reasonable time. * In the present case, the court found that the Rajendra Raja group had not filed their application for suo motu review within a reasonable time. The court also found that the Rajendra Raja group had not made out a case for the exercise of the power of suo motu review. 3. The court held that the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing the registering authorities to obtain a `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, before registering any sale deed in respect of certain disputed properties was valid. The court relied on the following principles: * The Inspector General of Registration has the power to issue circulars to the registering authorities. * The circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration was in the public interest. * The circular did not impose an absolute and conclusive restriction on the registering authorities. * The circular did not violate the rights of the petitioners.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed.
1. This batch of writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 18.07.2012.
2. Heard the arguments of Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Amaravathi Cranes and Structurals Private Ltd, represented by its Directors (for short Amaravathy Cranes) in some writ petitions as well as for its Directors in their individual capacity in some writ petitions and Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for Rajendra Raja and others belonged to his group (for short they are called as Rajendra Raja group) claiming various reliefs and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents.
3. The facts culled out from various pleadings in relation to the case filed by Amaravathy Cranes are as follows :
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.
4. 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.
5. 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
