Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Rajathi - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Salem & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 37747 of 2003 & W.P.M.P. No. 211 of 2012
Decided On : 11-12-2018
For the Petitioner:P. Jagadeesan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Janaki, Additional Government Pleader, G.Sankaran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 441 - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 2(1)(c) - Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 11-A,12 - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 48A,37,12,300-A - Challenge - Suit for enjoyment and possession - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Piece of land measuring acres in Survey Hasthampatti Village was by one great Grandfather of writ petitioners husband - Said land has been in continuous use and enjoyment and possession of family of writ petitioners husband for over years - Settlement Officer of Dharapuram granted patta after sub division of land Survey Number as and Patta Number as - Land is assessed and tax is being paid - Writ petitioner states that land was under cultivation at time of filing of writ petition and paddy was days old - Second respondent came to land and informed that said land should not be used by writ petitioner for cultivation - Respondents had not listening to words of writ petitioner - Writ petitioner made a representation to first respondent and to District Collector - Once again officials came to premises and forced writ petitioner not to cultivate land - Writ petitioner states that she is in possession and enjoyment of land as an absolute owner and therefore she will not be in a position to evict premises - Writ petitioner made several representations against forcible dispossession made by officials - Writ petitioner is constrained to move present writ petition for a direction to forbear respondents from dispossessing writ petitioner from land described in te present writ petition - Property in question is required for common purposes as it is classified as - In this regard necessary proposals were sent to Government separately for cancellation of orders passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Dharapuram granting patta for extent of acres in Survey of Hasthampatti Village of Salem Taluk under Act 26/1948 through District Collector Salem - Counter-affidavit states further that on account of interim injunction granted in present writ petition in favour of writ petitioner further action in this regard is kept in abeyance - Land in respect of Survey measuring an extent of acres at Hasthampatti village is classified as and same is known as which is highly objectionable land - Further it is contended that said situate in heart of Salem City Corporation - Land situate nearby Combined Court Buildings Salem and adjacent to Hasthampatti Police Station which is a prime locality at Salem City - Whether any citizen of this country will allow another citizen to encroach property owned by him - Whether officers would be discriminating between one set of persons and another one has got to take into account normal human behaviour and not behaviour which is abnormal - Whether an enquiry was conducted properly by Higher Authorities or not - Held, This Court is of an opinion that Honble Division Bench of Court in had not adjudicated sanctity/illegality of order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer - Suo motu notice which was challenged by writ petitioner in that writ petition was adjudicated and relief sought for in was to prohibit and forbear Government from conducting suo motu revision proceedings enquiry initiated by Government under proceedings this Court is of considered opinion that it was only notice and there was no adjudication of issues by Competent Authorities - Said notice was challenged on grounds of delay and jurisdiction - So such technical grounds raised cannot be a bar for ordering complete adjudication of issues in interest of public at large - When Courts have allowed writ petition on technical grounds that cannot be construed as a total bar for complete adjudication of issues in proper manner by verification of records and documents and by adducing evidences - No person can be allowed to take away Government lands merely on certain technical grounds - Courts are allowing certain writ petitions on account of certain procedural lapses if any committed by Competent Authorities - However such procedural lapses or some technical grounds cannot be a point for complete adjudication of issues and substantial justice to parties as well as to citizen at large in present case can be given only in event of conducting a proper enquiry and a complete adjudication with reference to revenue records and all other records - Mere passing of an order by Division Bench cannot be a point for writ petitioner to get away or dilute adjudication of issues at large - A perusal of typed set of documents filed in support of these writ petitions would reveal a shocking and sorry state of affairs - Admittedly petitioners are ranked encroachers and however concerned revenue officials have failed to take action at relevant point of time and therefore allowed them to perpetuate illegality and petitioners/their predecessors have not only stopped with illegal act of encroachment but also got emboldened on account of inaction on part of revenue officials as well as Local Body officials and proceeded to construct palatial superstructures without any authorisation or planning permission and also leased out same for commercial purposes - It appears that it was / is a deliberate and wilful act on part of revenue officials as well as Local Body officials as to non-taking of any action to abate such illegalities - Respondents shall cause inspection of entire area in question and identify encroachers as well as unauthorised / deviated constructions and take necessary and appropriate action within a period of ten weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a COMPLIANCE REPORT to this Court - Administrative Department of Government is directed to identify officials concerned as to continued laxity and exhibition of callousness and apathy in performing / discharging their official duties and neglect in protecting assets of Government and initiate appropriate Departmental and Criminal action and also file a Status Report - Writ Petition Disposed Of
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petition on hand is filed for a direction to forbear the respondents in any manner dispossessing the writ petitioner from the land in Patta 275 Survey No.18/8 measuring 1.84 acres Hasthampatti Village in Salem District.
2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, states that a piece of land measuring 1.8 acres in Survey No.18/3 Hasthampatti Village was held by one Venga Gounder, the great Grandfather of the writ petitioner's husband. The said land has been in continuous use and enjoyment and possession of the family of the writ petitioner's husband for over 67 years. The Settlement Officer of Dharapuram granted patta after sub division of land Survey Number as 18/8 and Patta Number as 275. The land is assessed and tax is being paid.
3. The writ petitioner states that the land was under cultivation at the time of filing of the writ petition and the paddy was 25 days old. On 19.11.2003, the second respondent came to the land and informed that the said land should not be used by the writ petitioner for cultivation. The respondents had not listening to the words of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner made a representation on 21.11.2003 to the first respondent and to the District Collector on 24.11.2003. Once again on 4.12.2003, the officials came to the premises and forced the writ petitioner not to cultivate the land. The writ petitioner states that she is in possession and enjoyment of the land as an absolute owner and therefore, she will not be in a position to evict the premises. The writ petitioner made several representations against the forcible dispossession made by the officials. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction to forbear the respondents from dispossessing the writ petitioner from the land described in the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, relying on the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 27.3.2001, states that the Settlement Officer has passed an order in favour of the writ petitioner and a Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in entirety. The District Collector, Salem filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the land in Survey No.18/3 measuring an extent of 2.33.5 Hectares of Hasthampatti Village, Salem Taluk stands registered as 'Kollankuttai Eri Poramboke' in village accounts. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in his proceedings dated 27.3.2001 has granted patta for a portion of the 1.84 acres from the land under reference in favour of the writ petitioner viz., Smt.Rajathi, W/o. (Late) Arumugam under Section 11-A of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Necessary changes have been carried out by sub dividing the land as Survey No.18/8 in an extent of 1.84 acres in Village and Taluk Accounts in favour of the writ petitioner.
6. A perusal of the Village Accounts reveals that the suit land in question originally stands classified as 'Kollankuttai Eri Poramboke' vested with the Government. This village was taken over by the Government on 12.1.1951 under the Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 and Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in the Village in Fasli 1362. On completion of entire survey and settlement work of this village, fair accounts of the village were prepared and handed over to the Revenue Department in the year 1970. It is not clear that how the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram passed an order now granting patta to the suit land in question in favour of the writ petitioner viz., Tmt.Rajathi under Section 11-A of the Act 26/1948 after the lapse of 39 years. Inasmuch as all the fair accounts of this village
