Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3978
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. SUNDRESH, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner, Land Administration & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
S. Mariammal & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. (MD) Nos. 180, 181 of 2014; 948, 949 of 2017; M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014; C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 5346, 5347, 6403, 6405 of 2017 & C.M.P. (MD) D. No. 8727 of 2017
Decided On : 18-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. B. Pugalendhi, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan
For the Respondents: Ms. N. Krishnaveni, M/s. C. Jeganathan
Headnote:
Land Laws – Title Claimed – Respondents/writ petitioners claimed title in pursuant to a patta said to have been issued by one Darga, by name Goripalayam Darga, which is admittedly not a party before us, in favour of one Pechiammal way back in the year 1924. – Even the said Pechiammal is not a party before us. – Perhaps she will not be alive as of now. – Accordingly, the writ petitioners claimed title based upon an unregistered sale deed alleged to have been executed in the year 1937. – Even according to the writ petitioners, the original owner was Goripalayam Darga. – The said Pechiammal was a patta holder. – However, she sold the properties by an unregistered sale deed in the year 1937. – Held, In the subsequent order passed by the learned Single Judge in directing the Tahsidlar to issue patta, these facts are not placed. – Once again an impression was given to the Court that the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement have become final and conclusive inter se parties. – Accordingly, Court find that the order of the learned Single Judge requires interference as unfortunately the background facts were not correctly placed. – After all a judgment can never be read like a Statute. – Secondly, a Writ Court is concerned with the process over an authority involving an administrative decision having civil consequences. – Decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners are not applicable to the facts on hand. – Court is concerned with not only with a case on merit but also one involving fraud. – It is also a case in which the Assistant Settlement Officer did something beyond his power. – There is no answer to the question of jurisdiction with specific reference to limitation. – An Assistant Settlement Officer has to act under the Act, but he extended his role by adorning the role of Revenue officials including setting aside a A register which was entered into as early as by giving a finding on the date of submission of the application on the nature of land. – Land has been classified decades ago. – Court do not propose to say much more. – Court only hope and trust that the appellants would be vigilant in future in creating such a situation involving public properties. – Writ Appeals Allowed.
M.M. Sundresh, J.
This case has got a chequered history. There are various actors involved in this case. Land is a commodity which always attracts different stakeholders. Apparently, the land in question is highly valuable as even recorded by the parties in the proceedings before us. With this preface let us discuss the matter.
2. The respondents/writ petitioners claimed title in pursuant to a patta said to have been issued by one Darga, by name Goripalayam Darga, which is admittedly not a party before us, in favour of one Pechiammal way back in the year 1924. Even the said Pechiammal is not a party before us. Perhaps she will not be alive as of now. Accordingly, the writ petitioners claimed title based upon an unregistered sale deed alleged to have been executed in the year 1937. Even according to the writ petitioners, the original owner was Goripalayam Darga. The said Pechiammal was a patta holder. However, she sold the properties by an unregistered sale deed in the year 1937.
3. In support of the unregistered sale deed reliance has been made on a settlement land register dated 30.04.1956. This settlement register strangely speaks about Madurai North District, though such a sub division was not available at the relevant point of time, admittedly. Thus there was no Madurai North on the date of settlement land register in the year 1956. Notwithstanding the settlement land register, claiming a patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer under Act XXVI of 1948, the writ petitioners made applications. It is to be noted that the property mentioned in the patta dated 27.06.1924, unregistered sale deed in the year 1937 and the Settlement Land Register dated 30.04.1956, is Survey No.174/4. It is more stranger that there was no sub division at the relevant point of time. Apparently, the said sub Division come into being only in the year 1962, as seen from the 'A' register extract of Thirupalai Group. Thus all these documents on their own face appear to be fabricated to say the least. May be, that is the reason why no reliance was made by the respondents at the time of their applications.
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, duly extended his benevolence in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners by giving a finding which is equally strange that the classification is wrong and the land is situated in an elevated place and therefore it cannot be termed as water body, despite the fact it was so, over the period of time. In the application itself, the writ petitioners sought for Ryotwari patta based upon long enjoyment, which is on the basis of 'B' memo charges paid by them. Even according to them, they are enjoying the Government property.
5. The Settlement Land Register dated 30.04.1956 was issued by way of a copy of the records registered by the officers as against whom departmental proceedings are stated to have been initiated apart from a criminal case. Added to that, one Senthil, petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.8727 of 2017 who is also a revenue official entered into a sale agreement dated 09.07.2008 and 24.07.2008, by which he has received substantial amount of money namely about 9 crores, for getting patta and thus undertook to do the needful. No wonder he was also proceeded against departmentally, which has resulted in an order of dismissal as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. The said Senthil has also filed a Review Application to review the order of the Division Bench. C.M.P.No.8727 of 2017 has also been filed by him before us after sniffing the pendency of the writ appeals. In fact, these appeals are being heard today after hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents at length on the last hearing and in order to make her to get proper instructions at that point of time itself, we had expressed our view. Therefore, it is not known as to how the petitioner in CMP No.8727 of 2017 was able to know the hearing today. It is pertinent to note that he did not file such an applicat
