Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Agri-Horticultural Society A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, Rep by its Honorary Secretary, V. Krishnamurthy, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP No. 17612 of 2023 & WMP Nos. 16694 to 16697 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Writ petition challenging the impugned order of the Commissioner of Land Administration, exercising suo motu revision power under Revenue Standing Order 31(8-A), to set aside the District Collector's order accepting the title and order transfer of registry, was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to occupy the government land, and the government was entitled to resume the land and recover lease rent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Agri-Horticultural Society, challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Land Administration, exercising suo motu revision power under Revenue Standing Order 31(8-A), to set aside the District Collector's order accepting the title and order transfer of registry. The petitioner claimed ownership of the subject property based on a private negotiation purchase from the East India Company/British Government and subsequent possession for over 150 years. The government contended that the subject property was government poromboke land and the petitioner had no title over it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to produce any document to establish their title to the subject property. The court also found that the District Collector's order was based on extraneous considerations and was passed without verifying the revenue records. The court held that the Commissioner of Land Administration was justified in exercising suo motu revision power to set aside the District Collector's order.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had a legal right to occupy the government land. 2. Whether the government was entitled to resume the land and recover lease rent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to occupy the government land. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce any document to establish their title to the subject property. The court also found that the District Collector's order was based on extraneous considerations and was passed without verifying the revenue records. 2. The court held that the government was entitled to resume the land and recover lease rent. The court noted that the subject property was government poromboke land and the petitioner had no title over it. The court also found that the petitioner had been in possession of the government land for several decades without paying any lease rent.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to occupy the government land, and the government was entitled to resume the land and recover lease rent.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to order of the second respondent in Rc No.R2(K4)/27673/2011 dated 05.06.2023, and quash the same.0
1. The Writ of Certiorari on hand has been instituted to quash the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 05.06.2023.
FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
2. The writ petitioner is the Agri-Horticultural Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner-Society states that originally the Society had lands granted by the East India Company / British Government, as well as, lands purchased out of its own funds through Private Negotiation, 1836 onwards. Certain portions of land were leased out to the Society by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1912.
3. The Society''s gardens, which are now claimed by the Government, are situated on the Northern side of Cathedral Road. On the Northern side, apart from the Society''s private lands, and adjoining the same having Lloyds Road on its Northern Border is, another portion of land, which is now Senganthal Poonga, a portion of land granted by the Government to the Society and now resumed. On the Southern side of Cathedral Road, lies Semmozhi Poonga, which comprises the land, originally leased out and later granted to the Society. Within the portion now occupied on Semmozhi Poonga, lies private lands of the Society are also, originally identified as OS Nos.3411 and 3062, Mylapore Village, which essentially makes it four tracks of land.
4. The Government attempted to resume the subject property in the year 1960. The petitioner filed WP No.469 of 1962 and eventually the matter entered into a settlement between the Society and the Government ofTamil Nadu and the question of ownership of the land in possession of the Society was left open. The Government re-granted portion of the land in the year 1980. Subsequently, there was no dispute for several years.
5. The petitioner states that the present action has been taken due to political reasons, since the petitioner had invited a family friend and the former Chief Minister in the year 1988 to inaugurate the Flower Show function. The petitioner states that the politicians of the DMK Party compelled the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner-Society Mr.V.Krishnamurthy to resign and he refused to do so. Therefore, there is political vendetta for resuming the lands belonging to the petitioner-Society.
6. The petitioner claims that the subject property is a private land of Agri-Horticultural Society and in its possession for over 150 years. The Government has wrongly claiming title over the property with an ulterior motive to resume the land, more specifically on certain political motives.
7. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Land Administration under RSO No.31 (8-A) was passed issuing the following three primary directions:-
(1) Setting aside the Order of District Collector dated 22.08.2011 and 23.09.2011, accepting Title and Order Transfer of Registry.
(2) Direction to the District Collector to take possession of the lands forthwith.
(3) Direction to Collect interim lease amount of Rs.341,10,79,205/- for the period from 2012 to 2023 and within a month and further compute and collect final lease amount for the period from 1989 to 2012, within a period of 3 months.
8. The impugned order has been challenged in various grounds, a few of which are crystallized herein.
(i) Possession deprived by State, without notice, contrary to law and without following due process. When the State claims title, against a long term possessor, it can do so by establishing title in a suit and praying for possession. Even in cases of encroachment or unauthorised possession, R.S.O. 26 applies and proceedings under 1905 Act can only be resorted to.
The Court emphasized the duty of the Authorities to protect the financial interest of the State and the importance of periodic review of Government largesse.
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.
Challenging a Show Cause Notice invoking a court's writ jurisdiction is premature and discouraged by the mandate of the law. A Show Cause Notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless there i....
The appellate court may correct the trial court’s decree but cannot set it aside without warrant if it maintains the substantive issues concerning land ownership and encroachment.
Government actions must be in conformity with reason and public interest. The Government cannot act arbitrarily and must act for the public good.
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
