AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is well settled in law that when a statute requires that any particular thing has to be done in a manner prescribed under the statute, the same
cannot be done in any other manner, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, vide Taylor v. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch.D.426
and Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others, . Any violation to the above rule will require the
interference by this Court by way of judicial review. The Rule laid down in Toylor v. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch.D.426 is attracted by the facts of the
instant case, which are narrated in brief as follows:
The petitioners claim that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of 1.50 acres of land in Survey No.96/1 and 3 acres in Survey
No.97/3 in Thimrnambet Village, Tirubathur Taluk, North Arcot Ambedkar District. They applied for grant of patta for the lands outside the scope
of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1943. (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as ""the
Act"") by G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971 which reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
ABSTRACT
Lands - Lands in Estates taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Grant of patta to
persons in continuous possession and enjoyment - Orders passed:
Revenue Department
G.O.Ms.No.1300 Dated 30.4.1971
G.O.Ms.No.1501. Revenue dated 8.7.58.
Govt. Memo No.68348/Ji/63-3 Revenue dt. 19.9.1963.
G.O.MS.No. 1312. Revenue dt.26.7,67.
G.O.Ms.No. 1925. Revenue dt.3.11.67.
Govt. Memo N0.41399/JI/68-2. Revenue dt.16.7.68.
G.O.MS.No.641, Revenue dt.28.2.70.
In the G.O. first read above, the Government passed orders that landholders who could not apply of ryotwari patta in time under the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. 1948 (Tamil Nadu XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but who would have
got patta if they had applied in time, might be granted patta outside the scope of (he Act, if they apply to the Collector of the District concerned. In
the Memo, second read above, the Government ordered that the vendees from the landholders might also be treated on the same basis as
landholders. Subsequently in 1967, the Government passed orders in the G.O. third read above that the concession allowed to the landholders
should be executed to the ryots also and that they should be granted patta outside the scope of the Act on the same basis as laid down in the first
read above. Thus the existing orders Provide for cases for the grant of patta to the landholders and ryots outside the scope of the Act in cases:-
(i) Where the landholder or the ryot or the vendee have got patta if he had applied in time under the Abolition Act but failed to make the
application in time,
(ii) Where the parties case into possession of better documentary evidence showing better title to grant of patta which were not available at the
time when the applicants were heard by the appropriate authorities under the Act.
It has been brought to the notice of the Government that even the implementation of the orders referred to above, there are yet a large number
of persons who have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land for years together in estate, taken over under the Act. Such persons
have not been granted patta either because they did not come under the eligible category for the grant of patta under the Act or under the orders of
the Government referred to above. It has been represented that it will be a hardship if such persons who have been in continuous possession and
enjoyment of their lands for together are not granted pattas.
The land in respect of which these persons have been in continuous possession and enjoyment have vest in the Government absolutely under the
Act. The Government after careful consideration have decided that patta should be granted to such persons on the basis of such continuous
possession and enjoyment of the land. The Government, therefore direct that such persons may be granted patta in accordance with the
instructions given below:-
(1) Any Person who has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of any land in the estates taken over under the Act, may apply for the grant
of patta in respect of such land.
(a) to the Revenue Divisional Officers in cases where the extent of such land does not exceed 5 acres of wet or irrigable dry or 10 acres of dry
lands and
(b) to the District Revenue Officer-Collector in all other cases.
Persons whose claims have been rejected under the Act or under the orders referred to above, may also apply this order, if such persons have
been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.
(2) The Revenue Divisional Officer/District Revenue Officers/Collector may grant patta of such application after the usual enquiry and after
satisfying himself that the applicant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land.
(3) The extent of the land for which patta is to be granted either by himself or together with the lands already held by the applicant shall not exceed
the ceiling limit fixed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961, as modified by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Reduction of Ceiling on land) Act, 1970.
(4) In cases where there are rival claims for the grant of patta in respect of the same land, the authority concerned may, in appropriate cases direct
the portion to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.
(5) In respect of cases whose land has been classified during settlement as communal poromboke but on ground, it has been converted as dry or
wet filed and the applicant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, the appropriate authority may grant patta in respect of
such land after following the prescribed procedure for changing the classification of the land.
(6) Consulalion with the settlement authorities before the grant of patta will not be necessary unless the Revenue Divisional Officer/District Revenue
Officer/Coilector is of the view that the matter on such required scrutiny from the settlement point of view.
(7) No market value of the land shall be collected for the grant of patta under these orders.
(8) Adequate publicity in the village and its neighbourhood shall be given by the appropriate authority about the proposal to grant patta under these
orders.
(9) The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Collector as the case may be granted or refusing to grant patta are subject to revision by the
Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras either suo motu or on application to be filed within sixty days of services of the order.
The Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras is requested to issue suitable instructions for the proper implementation of these orders to
their subordinate authorities.
sd/-
Secretary to Government.
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971, therefore, enables the petitioners to approach the respective Revenue Divisional
Officer where the extent of the land for which patta is sought for does not exceed 5 acres of wet or irrigable dry or 10 acres of dry lands; or the
respective District Revenue Officer-Collector in all other cases to enquire into such claims outside the scope of the Act and grant patta. The said
G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971, further provides either suo motu review by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of
Estates) Madras, namely, the second respondent or by an application which could be filed within sixty days by the aggrieved party.
Admittedly, the impugned lands are of a total extent of 4.50 acres, namely, 1.50 acres in Survey No. 96/1 and 3 acres in Survey No. 97/3 in
Thimmampet Village, Tirupathur Taluk, North Arcot Ambedkar District and therefore, only the fourth respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, is a
competent authority to enquire into the claim for grant of patta as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971 and to grant
patta for the same. Accordingly, the fourth respondent on a claim made by the petitioners held an enquiry and granted patta in favour of the
petitioners by proceedings dated 21.11.1983 and assigned the said lands in favour of the petitioners. However, the third party, namely Shri
Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoil, who never made any rival claim against the petitioners
before the fourth respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, preferred an appeal before the third respondent, District Revenue Officer against the
proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 21.11.1983 granting patta in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent, District Revenue Officer,
entertained the said appeal and allowed the same and also refused to grant patta to the third party Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal,
Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoil. The third party, Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal
Murugan Thirukoil, did not prosecute his case, but on a revision by the petitioners, the orders of the third respondent dated 20.1.1985 was
confirmed by the second respondent, namely the Commissioner of Land Administration by proceedings dated 19,12.1991, and again confirmed
by the first respondent by impugned proceedings dated 10.2.1993, hence the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari to call for the records culminating
into the orders passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Letter (Nilai) No.108 dated 10.2.1993 confirmed in the order of the second
respondent in his proceedings CLA.D.Dis (K) 8867/85 (RPS/91 dated 19.12,1991, in turn confirming the order of the third respondent in his
proceedings R.C.C2-73205/1984 dated 20.1.85 and quash the same by restoring the order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings
R.Dis.15160/82 dated 21.11.1983.
According to the petitioners, the impugned lands originally belong to ''Kuppam Zamin'', and the same was taken over by the Government as a
''Zamin Estate'' on 3.1.1951 under the provisions of the act, and subsequently, the said lands located in Survey Nos.96/1 and 97/3 were
reclassified as River poromboke and ''Oodai Poromboke'' respectively, without notice to the petitioners, eventhough they applied for grant of patta
for the said lands and the patta proceedings were pending.
The claim of the petitioners was originally rejected by the fourth respondent, by order dated 4.2.1976, on the ground that the extent of lands for
which patta is sought for by the petitioners, exceeds the ceiling limit fixed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act,
1961 as modified by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on land) Act, 1970. Even though the said order dated 4.2.1976 was
subsequently confirmed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings dated 19.5.1978 and (hereafter, by an order dated 26.6.1981 of this
Court in Writ Petition No.4082 of 1978, the same was set aside by an order dated 17.3.1982 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.459 of 1981, taking note of the fact that the Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation and Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961, by order dated 17.8.1981, set aside the findings of the Authorised Officer that the lands possessed by the petitioners'' family were not
attracting the provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.3.1982 made in Writ Appeal No.459 of 1981 reads as follows;
The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the statement that the order of the Authorised Officer has been set aside by the Land Tribunal
by an order dated 17.8.1991. In view of this fair statement, we are of the view that having regard of the subsequent events, the question will have
to be considered by the original authority as to whether the appellant before us would be entitled to the grant of patta outside the Tamil Nadu
Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971 in respect of
S.Nos.96/1 part and 97/3, Thimmampet Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, North Arcot Disirict. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned
Judge and also the order forming the subject matter of the writ petition and remit the matter to the Sub Collector, Tirupathur, North Arcot District
or any other Authority who is now vested with jurisdiction for consideration is relating to the grant of patta as mentioned above. Having regard to
the peculiar circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs.
It is not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 4.2.1976 as well as the
proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.5.1976 referred to above and set aside the order dated 26.6.1981 made in Writ Petition
No.4082 of 1978 and remitted the matter to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. After remittance, the fourth respondent, had inspected
the impugned lands on 14.10.1983; again conducted enquiries and found that the petitioners'' family is in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the impugned lands since 1943 i.e. prior to taking over the village by the Government and (hereafter. On the basis of the abovesaid findings, the
fourth respondent, by proceedings dated 21.11.1983, tracing the history referred to above, granted patta with respect to the impugned lands of an
extent of 1.50 acres in Survey No. 96/1 and 3 acres in Survey No.97/3 in favour of the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue
Department, dated 30.4.1971, which prescribes procedure to be followed in the matter of grant of patta outside the scope of Act and the further
remedies thereon.
Admittedly, there was no rival claimant with regard to the said lands before the fourth respondent at any point of time. However, one Shri
Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoit, had preferred an appeal on 23.1.1984, against the grant
of patta by the fourth respondent with respect to the impugned lands in favour of the petitioners on 21.11.1983, before the third respondent, who
by proceedings dated 20.1.1985, set aside the order of the fourth respondent dated 21.11.1983 and also rejected the claim of the appellant,
namely, Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoil, for grant of palta, as the said appellant was
found to be not in possession and enjoyment of the said lands on the notified date, namely, 3.1.1951.
Concedingly, the said appellant, namely, Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, has not challenged the sold order dated 20.1.1985 of
the third respondent dismissing his claim for grant of patta. Hence, the dismissal of the claim of Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal has
become final.
As already narrated above, aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.1.1985, the petitioners preferred a revision before
the second respondent, who by proceedings dated 19.12.1991 confirmed the proceedings of the third respondent, which was again confirmed by
the first respondent by letter No.108 dated 10.2.1993, which are impugned in the above writ petition.
Mr.D.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, strongly contends that as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.1300,
Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971, the order of granting patta by the fourth respondent has become final, unless the same is interfered suo
motu by the second respondent or by an application filed by the aggrieved party. Olherwise, it is contended that the third respondent has no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by any third party, namely, Shri Bhirarna Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal
Murugaii Thirukoil, who never stake any rival claim before the fourth respondent. He also argues that since the claim of third party was rejected
and the same was not prosecuted further by the said third party, the rejection of the claim also had become final.
In precise, it is contended that the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.1.1985, is without jurisdiction and the consequential
proceedings of the second and first respondents dated 19.12.1991 and 10.2.1993 respectively are also without jurisdiction.
Admittedly, Mrs. Selvi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, fairly concedes that the second respondent is
not a competent authority to entertain any appeal against the order of the fourth respondent dated 21.11.1983.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any dispute about the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No,1300, Revenue
Department, dated 30.4.1971, in the matter of granting patta outside the scope of the Act, that the fourth respondent alone is empowered to grant
patta where the extent of land for which patta is claimed does not exceed 5 acres of wet or irrigable dry or 10 acres of dry lands. The petitioners,
admittedly, claim grant of patta only for an extent of 4.50 acres in total, namely. 1.50 acres of land in, Survey No.96/1 and 3 acres in 97/3 in
Thimmampct Village, Tirupathu Taluk, North Arcot Ambedkar District. Therefore, the fourth respondent alone is the competent authority to grant
patta for the said lands, who had rightly exercised his power; inspected the impugned lands; made enquiries and granted patta in favour of the
petitioners, by proceedings dated 21.11.1983, as there was no other rival claim by whomsoever, much less, by Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara
Manicka Swamigal. Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoil, the third party.
The said proceedings dated 21.11.1983, granting patta by the fourth respondenl, could be interfered only by the Board of Revenue
(Settlement of Estates) Madras, namely, the second respondent, either suo motu by an application by the aggrieved party. The said G.O. does not
prescribe any other method to interfere with the grant of patta by the fourth respondent.
Admittedly, there was no rival claim before the fourth respondent by the third party, namely, Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara Manicka Swamigal,
nor the Board of 15 Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras, the second respondent, initiated proceedings suo motu against the assignment dated
21.11.1983 by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner was found to be in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the impugned lands on the notified dated, namely, on 3.1.1951. If that be so, assuming that the proceedings of the fourth respondent
dated 21.11.1983, granting patta in favour of the petitioners, could be interfered only by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras -
the second respondent by suo motu revision or by an application by the aggrieved party, the same could not be interfered or set aside in any other
manner, which is not prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971, which would be contrary to the well settled
principle laid down In Taylor v. Taylor Case, 1875 (l) Ch.D.426.
The very power exercised by the third respondent in entertaining the appeal preferred by the third party, namely, Shri Bhirama Yokeeswara
Manicka Swamigal, Trustee Arulmigu Thirumal Murugan Thirukoil, who was not a rival claimant before me original authority, the fourth respondent
herein, is in my considered opinion, totally without jurisdiction. Therefore, the consequential proceedings of the second and first respondents dated
19.12.1991 and 10.2.1993 respectively are also held to be without jurisdiction.
That apart, I find that the third respondent, in his proceedings dated 20.1.1985, interfered with the grant of patta by the fourth respondent, in
favour of the petitioners, in respect of the impugned lands only on the grounds that (i) the petitioners'' family was holding lands exceeding the ceiling
limit fixed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as modified by the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Reduction of
Ceiling on land) Act, 1970 and (ii) the petitioners had failed to produce a copy of the order dated 17.8.1981 of the Land Tribunal constituted
under the said Act, setting aside the findings of the Authorised Officer that the petitioners family was holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit under
the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation and Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, in the proceedings dated 21.11.1983 before the fourth respondent. In
my considered opinion, both the grounds are not tenable, in view of the findings of the Division Bench of this Court made in Writ Appeal No.459
of 1981, which has been extracted above, where the learned Government Advocate fairly conceded that the proceedings under the Land Ceiling
Act were set aside. Hence, even on merits, there is no ground (o interfere with the grant of patta by the fourth respondent, in his proceedings dated
20.1.1985, in favour of the petitioners, with respect to the impugned lands of an extent of 1.50 acres in Survey No.96/1 and 3 acres in Survey
No.97/3 in Thimmampet Village, Tirupaihur Taluk, North Arcot Ambedkar District, by the third respondent.
Hence, I hold that the proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.1.1985 and the consequential proceedings of the second and first
respondents dated 19.12.1991 and 10.2.1993 respectively, are without jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings dated 20.1.1985 of the third
respondent and the consequential proceedings of the second and first respondents dated 19.12.1991 and 10.2.1993 respectively are set aside and
consequently, the proceedings of the fourth, respondent is confirmed.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequendy, W.M.P.Nos.6521 of 1994 and 11541 of 1997 are closed.