Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, K. KUMARESH BABU, JJ.
The Assistant Settlement Officer (North) Office of the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement, Chennai & Another - Appellants
Versus
M/S. Mayajal Entertainment (P) Ltd., Represented by M.D. Udeep Bogollu - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 809 & 1059 of 2017 & C.M.P. Nos. 11320 & 14855 of 2017
Decided On : 01-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Arun, Additional Advocate General Assisted by T. Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader.
For the Respondent: K. Sridhar.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes, ensuring compliance with court orders, and preventing manipulation of legal proceedings.

Headnote:
Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 11 - Section 11(a) - Section 15 - Section 15 of Letters Patent - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, particularly focusing on Section 11 and Section 15. The court analyzed the application of these sections in the context of land dispute and issuance of Ryotwari Patta. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in setting aside the directions issued in the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over land in Kanathur Reddikuppam Village, which was taken over under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The respondent sought to obtain Ryotwari Patta for the land, leading to multiple legal proceedings and orders. The court was presented with conflicting claims and actions by the parties involved.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent and the officers involved had manipulated the legal process to obtain favorable orders, disregarding the provisions of the Act and the directions of the court. The court highlighted the lack of integrity and the contradictory actions of the officers, leading to a reversal of the previous orders issued in the writ petitions.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the respondent's claim for Ryotwari Patta, the conduct of the involved officers, and the implementation of court directions. The court also addressed the dispute over the land's classification and the respondent's title claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the manipulation of legal proceedings, lack of integrity of the officers, and the failure to comply with court directions. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes and ensuring compliance with court orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the directions issued in the writ petitions, emphasizing that the previous orders had not been fully implemented. The court did not award costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, K. Kumaresh Babu, JJ.

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the orders made in W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 & 02.11.2012 respectively.)

1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the orders made in W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 & 02.11.2012 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case is that Kanathur Reddikuppam Village was taken over under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred as Act, 1948) by a Notification dated 07.03.1957 vide G.O.Ms.No.630 Revenue, dated 09.02.1957.

3. Settlement proceedings were initiated in the year 1959. The issue in the present Writ Petition is in respect of land in S.No.34/2 Reddikuppam Village. The total extent of land in S.No.34 was 5.85 Acres, has been sub-divided into two bearing S.No.34/1 measuring to an extent of 3.85 Acres and S.No.34/2, measuring to an extent of 2 Acres. On 05.05.2003, the respondent herein had made an application to the District Collector, Chengalpet District, seeking for grant of lease for a period of 30 years. Along with the said application he had also submitted all relevant documents including a signed Form-I stipulated for a request to lease of Government Poramboke lands. The Tahsildar, Chengalpet District, had also conducted an enquiry and forwarded a proposal for leasing the said lands for a period of 20 years by fixing the annual rent at Rs.22,41,596/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Six Only) per annum to the District Collector, Chengalpet. The said proposal was returned by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration as it was defective. On 13.07.2009, the Tahsildar forwarded the revised lease proposal by fixing the annual rent at Rs.22,76,918/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen Only) to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet. On 26.07.2011, the respondent herein had made representation to the 1st appellant herein for grant of Patta in respect of land in S.No.34/2, Kanathur Reddikuppam Village, alleging that he had purchased the property in the year 1999 and that they are in possession of the said land for over 12 years. Originally, the said request was rejected by the 1st appellant on the ground that he had no Authority to consider the request in view of the G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 29.06.1987. The same was challenged by the respondent. This Court by order dated 21.09.2011 taking into consideration that no notice was given to the 1st respondent herein before rejecting its request the order of the 1st appellant was set aside with a direction to consider the application afresh after giving an opportunity and taking note of the relevant rules and notifications including that of delay and pass fresh orders within a period of two weeks.

4. The first appellant vide order dated 02.11.2011 passed orders granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of the respondent. He had considered the issue of the delay in filing the application. The respondent thereafter by letter dated 07.06.2002 addressed to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, stating that he is not interested in the lease as requested by him. Thereafter, the respondent filed W.P.No.29465 of 2012, seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar, Chengelpet, to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk accounts based on his representation dated 06.04.2012, in pursuance to the order dated 02.11.2011. This Court by the impugned order dated 02.11.2012 directed the implementation of the order, as there was no appeal filed against the same. This order is impugned inW.A.No.1059 of 2017.

5. The second appellant vide his order dated 08.03.2013, referring to the order of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner Land Administration, had directed the respondent to approach the District Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document