@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.K. Sasidharan, J.@mdashThe apprehension raised by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai in the year 2005 on the basis of relevant materials that there is an attempt on the part of the local land grabber in connivance with the officials of the Revenue and Tamil Nadu Housing Board to grab a valuable Government property, has now come true in view of the attempt made by the petitioners claiming Railway land acquired in the year 1962 on the basis of the records manipulated by their predecessor-in-interest in connivance with the Government officials, who would go to any extent on exterior consideration to help land grabbers to achieve their goal.
The facts:
The case pleaded by the petitioners are as follows:
(a) The land in old Survey No. 57, Villivakkam Village having an extent of 40 cents out of 69 cents was the subject matter of land acquisition. The Acquisition Proceedings were initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu for establishing Integral Coach Factory (hereinafter referred to as "ICF"). The Government acquired 13 cents in Old Survey No. 57 and 34 cents in Old Survey No. 58 and handed over it to the railways. The 13 cents in old survey No. 57 acquired for ICF was assigned with Survey No. 57/1A after sub-division. Similarly 34 cents acquired for ICF in Old Survey No. 58 was given new sub-division No. 58/1. The remaining extent of 35 cents comprised in Survey No. 58 and 27 cents in survey No. 57 were given Survey Nos. 58/2 an 57/1B respectively. Both survey numbers are now assigned with new survey No. 91/2 and stands in the joint name of petitioners. The land acquired by ICF in old Survey Nos. 57/1A and 58/1 were assigned with new Survey No. 91/8.
(b) The revenue department granted patta to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the property and the revenue records were mutated. The Estate Officer, ICF issued a letter to the mother of the petitioners confirming that the lands in Survey Nos. 57/1B and 58/2 alone were acquired for ICF. The land owned by the petitioners is bounded on the north by ICF compound and southern side by TNHB land as well as Otteri Nulla which is surrounding their land in "U" shape. In view of this "U" shape of Otteri Nulla, rain water used to inundate the entire Housing Board land. The local Residents Welfare Association took up the matter with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and ultimately the State Government agreed to straighten the Otteri Nulla.
(c) The petitioners were requested by the authorities to hand over an extent of 5 grounds and 213 sq. ft. on the northern boundary of their patta land abutting ICF compound wall for the purpose of straightening the Otteri Nulla. The Housing Board agreed to sell and transfer an extent of 9 grounds to the petitioners taking into account the land occupied by Otteri Nulla The petitioners agreed for the said suggestion and handed over their patta land measuring 5 grounds and 213 sq. ft. to the revenue department on 25 September 2001. The proposal was approved by the Government vide order in G.O.Ms. No. 49 dated 10 February 2004. There were certain litigations between the petitioners and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with respect to the payment to be made to the Housing Board for the land allotted on account of transfer of 5 grounds and 213 sq. ft. to the revenue department. The dispute was ultimately compromised and the petitioners remitted the amount indicated in the compromise memo filed before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1042 of 2008.
(d) The first respondent started the work of straightening the Otteri Nulla. It was agreed that after completing the work, the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam Perambur Taluk and the officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board would demarcate the lands now covered by Otteri Nulla in "U" shape and convey the same to the petitioners. This work was intercepted by the officials of the ICF and the Railway police by making a false claim that the land in Survey No. 91/2 belonged to ICF. The Public Works Department vide commutations dated 7 January 2013 and 19 February 2013 informed ICF that they have no right over the private patta land. However, the fourth respondent out of certain personal reasons deputed the railway police to the site and the authorities were not permitted to undertake survey or to do the work relating to straightening of Otteri Nulla. This made the petitioners to file this writ petition to restrain ICF from claiming any right over their land in present Survey No. 91/2 relating to Old Survey Nos. 57/1''B and 58/2, Villivakkam Village and thereby disturbing the straightening of Otteri Nulla.
Defense:
2. The Chief Engineer, ICF filed a very detailed counter affidavit tracing Railway title and possession over the disputed property. The contentions in the counter affidavit are as follows:
(a) The acquisition request for ICF was made in two phases. The first phase of acquisition was as per proceedings dated 30 June 1958 bearing No. 33/1367-8A/94/1367. The second phase of acquisition was conducted thereafter and the land was transferred in the name of ICF by proceedings No. 8A/63/1371 dated 20 November 1961. The lands in question viz., old Survey No. 57/1B and 58/2 in block No. 32, Villivakkam Village corresponding to new survey No. 91/2 within the limits of Chennai Corporation was acquired by the Government for ICF to meet its additional requirements viz., drawl of water for working the second shift.
(b) The property was acquired in two phases. The first phase of acquisition relates to 13 cents in Survey No. 57/1A ad 34 cents in Survey No. 58/1. Subsequently, the Government acquired the remaining extent of 27 cents in Survey No. 57/1B and 35 cents in survey No. Nos. 58/2. It was later assigned new survey No. 91/2. Therefore, the entire property in Survey No. 91/2 belongs to the Railways.
(c) The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners taking into account the fact that the Railways have not constructed a compound wall to the property, in collusion with the revenue officials obtained patta in respect of property in Survey No. 91/2. The patta is not binding on ICF. The subordinate officer, who issued the certificate to the petitioner''s mother has no right to issue such certificate. Even the authenticity of the said certificate is questionable as there are no office records to verify the genuineness of the letter. The land in survey No. 91/2 is bounded on the north by ICF compound wall and southern side by Otteri Nulla and after that there are vacant lands. The land is bounded by Otteri Nulla channel in the eastern and western side and a open well and a gate on the ICF compound wall is still available. This gate was used by ICF personnel to go to the pump house to operate the pump. After cleverly examining the situation and to get a bigger piece of land in one stretch, the petitioners have hatched out a scheme i.e. to hand over 5 grounds and 213 sq. ft of land in Survey No. 57/1B and 58/2 of block No. 32, Villivakkam Village and to obtain 9 grounds of land occupied by the present Otteri Nulla. With an ulterior motive to achieve their scheme of things, they proposed the diversion of Otteri Nulla in the name of straightening through the ICF land in Survey Nos. 57/1B and 58/2 of block No. 32, Villivakkam Village, which is presently new Survey No. 91/2 without the knowledge and consent of ICF. In short, the ICF alleged acts of fraud committed by the petitioners besides land grabbing.
Summary of Submissions:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the authorities of ICF earlier very clearly declared that ICF is entitled only for the land in Survey Nos. 57/1A and 58/1 having an extent of 47 cents. Therefore ICF was not correct in claiming the land in Survey No. 91/2. According to the learned counsel the Tahsildar and Survey Department conducted survey of the property and confirmed the boundary of ICF land. Therefore, ICF cannot claim any property beyond its boundary. According to the learned counsel, the revenue department issued patta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and subsequently the said property was purchased by the petitioners. The petitioners have perfected their title and as such the Railways have no justifiable claim.
4. The learned counsel for ICF submitted that the subject case is a clear case of land grabbing with the active assistance of officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Revenue Officials. The acquisition was made in two phases. The fact that after the second phase of acquisition compound wall was not constructed by ICF, was taken advantage by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to obtain patta in respect of the Government land. The Revenue Authorities without verifying the title to the property or possession issued patta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and subsequently in the name of petitioners. The patta is not binding on ICF. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the award passed by the Government contended that the Government took possession of the land, which is now earmarked as Survey No. 91/2 and handed over the same to ICF. Therefore, the petitioners have no right, title, interest or possession in respect of the property in question.
Factual Analysis:
5. The Government issued notification dated 22 January 1958 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire large extent of land for railways. The notification shows that 13 cents in Survey Nos. 57/1A an 34 cents in Survey No. 58/1 in Villivakkam Village were acquired. Subsequently another extent of 35 cents in Survey No. 58/2 and 27 cents in Survey No. 57/1B were acquired.
The said land in Survey No. 58/2 and 57/1B are now covered by Survey No. 91/2 was issued on 12 August 1959. Therefore it is very clear that the lands now claimed by the petitioners in Survey No. 91/2 were acquired by Government and possession was given to the Railways. The notifications produced by the ICF proves the falsity of the case pleaded by the petitioners with respect to their right in the property in Survey No. 91/2.
6. The petitioners have produced the sale deed dated 1 December 1995 executed by Mr. C. Narayanasamy in favour of their mother Mrs. K. Kanniammal. The vendor has stated that he acquired the property by way of a release deed dated 9 day of Thai month 1964. The document is bereft of details as to how Appadurai Pillai got the property. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners obtained patta on 22 February 1999. The ICF was not given any notice with respect to the application submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for granting patta. The petitioners are now harping on their case solely on the ground that the Railways have already constructed a compound wall in respect of the property acquired and as such they have no claim over the land situated outside the compound wall. The said contention has absolutely no basis on account of the documents produced by the Railways and the statement made in the counter affidavit. The Chief Engineer, ICF in his counter affidavit very clearly stated that compound wall was not constructed after second acquisition because there is Otteri Nulla on the boundary of those lands and nobody can have access from outside. The fact that the Railways have not constructed compound wall encircling its land would not give a right to third parties to claim right or possession over the land. The petitioners have to establish by producing documents that their predecessor-in-interest was having clear title and possession over the property and the same devolved on them.
7. The documents produced by the petitioners would not prove their right to claim the property in Survey No. 91/2. The Railways is perfectly correct in its contention that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners hatched a conspiracy to grab Government land and succeeded in getting patta on account of the Assistance given by the Revenue Officials and the greedy officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The patta issued by the Tahsildar to the predecessor-in-interest and thereafter to the petitioners with respect to the property owned by ICF would not give them any right. The patta cannot be taken as a document to negative the claim made by the Railways. The certificate given by the officer, who was not authorised to give any such certificate without reference to the official records cannot be the basis for an illegal claim, more so on account of the numerous documents produced by ICF to prove its ownership and possession of the land in survey No. 91/2.
8. The report submitted by the Assistant Director, Department of Survey and Land Records to the District Collector dated 8 September 2006 also contained a reference about the right claimed by ICF. The report dated 8 September 2006 clearly shows that old survey No. 57/1 was sub divided as Survey No. 57/1A and 57/1B. The land having an extent of 13 cents in Survey No. 57/1A was acquired for ICF. Similarly the land in Survey No. 58 was sub divided into 58/1 and 58/2 and 34 cents in Survey No. 58/1 was acquired initially for ICF as per letter No. 33/1367/8A/84/1367 dated 30 June 1958 and the same was found in Register No. 7 of the Taluk. Subsequently, the lands in survey Nos. 57/1B and 58/2 were joined with survey Nos. 57/1A and 58/1 from which lands were acquired in the year 1958 and registered in the name of ICF as per proceedings No. 8A/68/1371 dated 20 November 1961. This report was submitted pursuant to the objection made as to how patta was granted to Thiru Natarajan predecessor in interest of the petitioners in respect of 16 grounds of land in old Survey No. 56 and 57, Villivkkam Village. The Assistant Director wondered as to how patta could be granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in spite of the fact that the lands stood in the name of ICF. The Assistant Director concluded that there is a failure on the part of the revenue officials to consider "A" register before issuing patta, meaning thereby, patta was granted not withstanding the fact that the revenue records were shown in the name of ICF. The Assistant Director arrived at a conclusion that it was a wrong action on the part of the revenue officials to issue patta in the name of the petitioners.
9. The confidential letter sent by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department shows as to how the land grabber has been moving for the purpose of obtaining patta in respect of the property owned by Railways. The letter reads thus:
-------- Shaktikanta Das, IAS Revenue Department Secretary to Government. Secretariat Chennai-600 009.
D.O. Letter No. 54106/LD VI-2/2005-1
dated 11.11.2005
My dear Audisesiah,
Sub: Land-Grabbing of land Chennai District Purasawalkam and Perambur Taluk S. No. 56 & 57 (Part) Regarding.
Ref: From the Additional Secretary to Government,
Public Department, D.O. Letter No. 8256/L &
O-B/2005-3 Public (L & O), dated 29.7.2005
and 21.10.2005.
--------
I am to enclose a copy each of the D.O. letter cited wherein it has been stated that one Thiru A.L. Natarajan, residing at Plot No. 1767-A, 18th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40 engaged in real estate business, is attempting to gain possession of 16 grounds of Government poramboke land at Anna Nagar in Survey Nos. 56 and 57 (part), Villivakkam Village, Purasawalkam and Perambur Taluk through false representation. The modus operandi is said to consist of getting No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that the land does not belong to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and then approaching the Revenue officials for patta under the guise of persons who owned the land before the Tamil Nadu Housing Board took over the site. It has also been reported that the Public Works Department officials may be influenced to re-locate the Otteri-Nulla to the Northern side so that the land under consideration would be contiguous with Vasanthan Colony.
2. I am therefore to request you to arrange to verify the above information and if found true, to kindly take action to prevent the illegal usurpation of the land by taking severe action against the vested interests.
3. The action taken in this matter may please be informed to the Government immediately.
Yours sincerely,
sd/-
To
Thiru S. Audisesiah, IAS Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk. Chennai-5.
--------
10. The arrangement made by the petitioners with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Government to hand over the land to claim 5 grounds and 213 sq. ft. from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board would not bind ICF. The petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of the order in W.P. No. 34921 of 2005 and the compromise recorded in W.A. No. 1042 of 2008. In none of those proceedings, ICF was a party. The petitioners claimed right in respect of the property in Survey No. 91/2 and without ascertaining their right, the Government proceeded to take over the land and to give alternative land to the petitioners through the Housing Board. These transactions were all made behind the back of ICF. The available documents are very clear that the property in Survey No. 91/2 absolutely belongs to the Railways.
11. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was registered before the Sub Registrar Office and it was shown in the encumbrance relating to property in Survey No. 91/2.
12. The petitioners have now come up with a strange prayer to restrain ICF from claiming any right in respect of the property in Survey No. 91/2 and disturbing the construction work of Otteri Nulla by the Public Works Department. In case the Public Works Department is having right over the property, they should have taken up the mater with ICF. The Government proceeded as if the property belongs to the petitioners. The said claim is now found wrong by the documents produced by the Railways. The petitioners wanted a blanket order to restrain the Railways from enjoying its own land. The writ petition is clearly misconceived. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners succeeded in getting the patta with the active assistance of Railway Officials. The petitioners now wanted to enjoy the benefit of such fraud. Since the property in Survey No. 91/2 was acquired by the Government and possession was given to ICF, there is no question of restraining ICF from enjoying its property. I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the petitioners in the writ petition.
13. The Supreme Court in
32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
....
36. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
14. The petitioners are rank trespassers in respect of the land owned by the Railways. They have come to this Court with a false claim and wanted the Court to believe that their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the land on the basis of patta granted by the revenue officials. Now that it is evident that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners have no right in respect of the land in Survey No. 91/2, it has to be construed that the petitioners have also no right in respect of the said land. The petitioners, who are the successors in interest of land grabbers, unnecessarily dragged the Railways to the midst of litigation. Therefore, petitioners are liable to pay cost to the Railways.
Conclusion:
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each as costs to the third respondent. The total costs amount of Rs. 50,000/- should be paid on or before 30 September 2013, failing which it is open to the Railways to approach the Collector, Chennai to recover the amount treating it as arrears of land revenue. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
