Gurusamy, Pachamalai and Pandiammal vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Collectorate and The Tahsildar

K. Chandru, J.—The three Petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the second Respondent District Revenue Officer (DRO). By the impugned order, the Petitioners'' review petition was rejected. It was indicated that if the Petitioners'' so desire, they can challenge the same by filing appropriate appeal before the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Land Administration. Without availing the said appellate remedy, the writ petition was filed.

The writ petition was admitted on 02.07.2010. Pending the writ petition, no interim order was granted in the application for interim stay.

Heard Mr. K. Sekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the Respondents.

The first two Petitioners were brothers and the third Petitioner was the wife of one of their brother 3 Andi, who is no more. It was claimed that the land in Survey No. 4/3 in Perungudi Village, Madurai South Taluk to the extent of 6 acres and 34 cents were reserved as "Panjami" land. Out of the total area, an extent of 3 acres and 34 cents were in possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners'' father Ponnnandi. He was cultivating the said land from the year 1969. The cultivation was also recognized and it was recorded in the village Adangal. In recognition of his possession and cultivation, the land was sub-divided and he was assigned to an extent of 3 acres in S. No. 4/3 by the Government. It was claimed that the Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste community.

The Petitioners'' father died in the year 1981, leaving his wife, his three sons viz., the first and second Petitioners and the husband of the third Petitioner. After the death of their father, they inherited the property and were continuously cultivating the same for their livelihood. In the meanwhile, their eldest brother Andi died leaving the third Petitioner as his legal heir. During the year 1983, when the first and second Petitioners were minor, one Valli Moopar from the same village with the help of the village headman under threat and duress grabbed the "Panjami" land from the mother of the Petitioners. She executed a sale deed 4 dated 11.04.1983 to the said Valli Moopar. Though the first and second Petitioners were minor, the purchaser obtained their signatures, but the third Petitioner is not a party to the sale deed. Thus, contrary to the revenue board standing order, the land has been transferred to a non scheduled caste person by the sale deed dated 11.04.1983. The sale deed is against the provisions of law and as per the Revenue Board Standing order No. 15, no "Panjami" land assigned to a scheduled caste can be transferred and in case of any alienation, the land will be returned back to the allottee or to the legal heirs. Even assuming there was a sale, one of the legal heir namely either Andi or his wife, the third Petitioner had not signed in the sale deed and hence, the sale was illegal.

The Petitioners presented a petition to the third Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and requested his intervention. The third Respondent cancelled the patta granted in favour of the purchaser Valli Moopar as well as cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the Petitioners'' father late Ponnandi. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred a revision petition before the second Respondent District Revenue Officer. The second Respondent remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. On such remand, the third Respondent RDO found that the sale deed was invalid and illegally procured by Valli Moopar. But at the same time, he recorded that the possession of the land is with one non scheduled caste and hence, it should automatically be reverted to the Government.

Aggrieved by the said order of the third Respondent, the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the second Respondent DRO. The second Respondent by the impugned order dated 15.04.2010 confirmed the order passed by the third Respondent.

It is the case of the Petitioners that if an illegal sale had taken place in respect of "Panjamai" land, the beneficiary should not be punished. Upon the cancellation of document relating to sale, the land should be given to the beneficiaries or the legal heirs of the original assignee. For the sin of their mother, they should not be punished. As admittedly at the relevant time, Respondents 1 and 2 were minors and the third Petitioner being the wife of the eldest brother was also not a party to the sale. It was also claimed that the suit filed by Vali Moopar in Civil Court was dismissed by the Civil Court and therefore, there was no 6 impediment for the grant of the land assigned in favour of the Petitioners.

The second Respondent found that the order passed by the third Respondent was passed under Revenue Standing Order No. 15(38) and the land had been rightfully reverted to the State Government. In normal circumstances, if a "Panjami" land is encroached by a non scheduled caste, it can be recovered from the possession of such person and handed over either to the original assignee or the legal heir. But in the present case, it was a sale for consideration. Therefore, the advice given under RSO No. 15/41 will not apply. There was no guarantee that the present Petitioners will not sell the land after getting possession of the same and it will lead to a bad precedent. It was also stated that under the original allotment condition in RSO 15/41, if there is any violation of conditions, the Government can resume the land. Therefore, he is not inclined to interfere with the order of the RDO. It was also stated that if the complaint given by the Petitioners that the sale deed was forged, it has to be enquired into by the Judicial Magistrate Court and any case filed against the purchaser under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989 will have to be decided only by the Criminal 7 Court. Therefore, a direction was given to the Tahsildar to register the land in the village accounts as assessed sarkar waste.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Respondents. The contention that sale deed is void and therefore, they should be given possession cannot be accepted. As rightly held by the authorities below, it will lead to a wrong precedent. The Petitioners having chosen to sell the land, they were automatically disqualified for repossession of the land.

In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.