The principle of approbate and reprobate was applied, emphasizing that a party cannot accept and reject the same thing, and that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.26255 of 2011.)

T. Raja, A.C.J.

1. Agri Horticultural Society represented by its Honorary Secretary Mr.V.Krishnamurthy has brought this writ appeal challenging the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.26255 of 2011.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the show cause notice dated 01.11.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration before the learned single Judge, calling upon the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer/Collector (FAC) should not be cancelled for the reasons inter alia that the entire extent of land in R.S.No.64 of Mylapore Village has all along been registered as Government poramboke land; that there was no documentary evidence produced by the appellant to establish absolute title over the suit land; etc.

3. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant society was formed on 15 July 1835 as the Madras Agri-Horticultural Society. From the date of establishment of the society, the appellant had purchased lands through private negotiations and even during the period 1910, the Collector also had stated in one of his reports that the society has purchased lands measuring 17 cawnies, 21 grounds and 185 square feet by private negotiations. With regard to 22 grounds situated on the southern side of the Cathedral Road, there is an entry in the encumbrance register. Besides, the Government also had granted land to the appellant society from time to time. However, during the year 1964, there was an attempt to resume the land granted to the appellant society, which was challenged before this Court. Subsequently, the matter was compromised and the proceedings were dropped. Later on, in the year 1980, the Government again attempted to resume the land belonging to the appellant society on the alleged ground of violation of the conditions of grant. After detailed discussions, the appellant society unconditionally accepted the Government''s title to the land mentioned therein and the said land was re-granted to the appellant society under G.O.Ms.No.513 dated 04.03.1980. But the right of ownership of the Government was confined only to the extent mentioned in the said Government Order. While so, the Government issued a show cause notice in July 1989 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the land granted to the appellant society by G.O.Ms.No.513 dated 04.03.1980 should not be resumed on certain alleged grounds mentioned therein. As the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.1259 dated 05.08.1989 grossly violating the principles of natural justice and also took possession of the land, the appellant society filed W.P.Nos.11058 and 11059 of 1989 and this Court passed an order of status quo to be maintained. Finally in its order dated 19.06.1998, this Court allowed the writ petitions quashing the order of resumption on the ground that it was politically motivated and there was no material to show that the lands were really required by the Government. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, W.A.Nos.1030 and 1031 of 1998 were filed and the same were also allowed by order dated 11.04.2008, as against which, when appeals were filed before the Hon''ble Apex Court, the said appeals were also finally dismissed in the year 2019 upholding the resumption of the land. In the meanwhile, a notice dated 29.09.2010 was issued calling upon the appellant society to produce the document in support of their claim with regard to the land in question within 15 days time doubting the ownership of the property. The appellant also sent a reply dated 29.10.2010 questioning the jurisdiction of the District Collector to call upon the appellant to establish their title and further informed the District Collector that t