AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 08.04.2008, passed by the District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar / first Respondent herein.
This is a classic case, which shows that the Government Agencies, working under different heads, are not aware of the decisions taken by the authorities, under different Acts. It also shows that decisions are taken by quasi judicial authorities, in ignorance of the orders passed under the different Statutes.
In the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has pleaded, that the Petitioner is a Registered Society. The Society, being aggrieved by an earlier order passed by the District Collector, had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 7816 of 2005, vide which entries with respect to S. No. 319 and S. No. 328/3 was ordered to be changed. S. No. 319 was said to be "Nandavanam" while S. No. 328/3 was recorded as "Teppakulam attached to the Sri Shenbaga Vinayagar Temple".
The Petitioner submits, that the lands were ryotwari lands, which belonged to the Petitioner''s society.
It is the case of the Petitioner, that in the year 1974, a request was made on behalf of Sivakasi Municipality / second Respondent to donate a portion of the land in S. No. 319 for construction of connecting a road. The request was declined by the Petitioner.
It is the case of the Petitioner, that the Municipality, thereafter, illegally interfered with the right of the Petitioner, to enjoy the property, and to achieve the oblique object, got the land in dispute, classified as "Sarkar Poramboke Nandavanam" and "Sarkar Poramboke Kulam".
On coming to know about the changes, the Petitioner approached the Assistant Settlement Officer, under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act 1948.
The application filed by the Petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, and the earlier position with regard to the entries qua the land were ordered to be restored i.e., "Nandavanam" and "Teppakulam", under the ownership of the Petitioner.
In spite of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the second Respondent continued to interfere with the land of the Petitioner. This forced the Petitioner, to institute a suit O.S. No. 67 of 2003. The suit filed by the Petitioner was decreed, and the second Respondent was restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the land of the Petitioner.
It is the case of the Petitioner, that instead of accepting the decree of the Civil Court, the second Respondent, thereafter, approached the first Respondent / District Collector, for change of entries in the Revenue Records. The first Respondent accepted the plea of the second Respondent / Municipality, and ordered change of entries. The order passed by the District Collector was without notice to the Petitioner i.e., the reason, that it was set aside, by this Court in W.P. No. 7816 of 2005 decided on 11.09.2007.
On remand of the case by this Court, the District Collector issued notice to the Petitioner, and after hearing the Petitioner, again, maintained the earlier order. The reason given for change of entries, is that the District Collector was issued a letter by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, pointing out, that the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, was not in accordance with law, and stood set aside. This letter is dated 26.05.2003, whereas the suit filed by the Petitioner was decided on 05.01.2005. The second Respondent Municipality did not produce or rely on this letter in Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner.
The decree of the Civil Court is ignored by the District Collector only on the ground, that the State was not a party to the said Suit. This reason, prima facie, is not sustainable in law, as, it is well settled law, that the Revenue Authorities are bound by the Civil Court decree, because change was ordered by the District Collector on application moved by the Municipality, which was party to Civil Suit. Nothing has been shown as to whether any application was filed by the State claiming ownership.
Further, in any case, before ordering the change, in exercise of quasi-judicial power, it was pre-requisite, that an application should have been moved, on which notice was to be issued to the opposite party.
The District Collector, acting as a Government, had No. right to pass an order, against the quasi-judicial order passed, as it would amounts to judging his own cause. The remedy with the District Collector was to challenge quasi judicial order in accordance with law.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as on the face of it, is arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the quasi-judicial order passed, which deserves to be set aside.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first Respondent, opposes the writ, by contending that the land was initially also classified as "Nandavanam" and "Kulam", belonging to the Government, as would be clear from the Survey conducted in the year 1974 under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, is that, it is not open to the Petitioner, to challenge the entries made under the Act, except by Statutory Appeal. The Petitioner did not file any Appeal against these entries. Though the contention is raised, nothing has been shown, with regard to any change to the detriment of the Petitioner carried out in the survey conducted in the year 1974, which could entitle the Petitioner to file the Statutory Appeal.
In order to support the stand that the District Collector had the jurisdiction to interfere with the matter, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, wherein u/s 13 of the Act, the Government is authorized to Notify any Authority / person not below the rank of District Revenue Officer, to be a Revisional Authority. This argument again is misconceived, as nothing has been placed on record, showing that the District Collector, is Notified to be a Revisional Authority under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. In absence of Notification, the District Collector cannot exercise revisional authority, in selected cases, just because he happens to hold a position higher than D.R.O.
The learned Counsel for the second Respondent Municipality also opposed the writ petition. There is No. necessity to notice the contentions of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent Municipality, because the Municipality was a party to the suit filed by the Civil Court and the decree passed has attained finality.
It is not open to the second Respondent Municipality, now, to claim ownership of any other person, as the Civil Court decree is binding on the Revenue Authorities.
The question to be decided is, regarding rights of the Petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, changing the entries in favour of the Petitioner, which according to the first Respondent stands set aside by the Commissioner, as conveyed to the District Collector.
If the order of Assistant Settlement Officer had been validly set aside, then it was open to the District Collector, under the Revenue Code to correct the revenue entries. But, the power under Revenue Code can be exercised only, in case, there is No. statutory bar or quasi-judicial / judicial order to the contrary. The Collector, in this case, did not have power under the Code to convert the revenue entries as the matter was not only decided by the statutory authorities, but was also, the subject matter of a Civil Suit.
It is not in dispute, that the Commissioner of Land Administration has the power to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, at the same time, it is well settled, that the quasi-judicial order can only be set aside in exercise of Revisional power, though can be exercised suo motu.
In order to exercise the suo motu revisional power, it is a pre-requisite that the authority has to issue notice to the affected parties, and thereafter, pass a detailed order, giving reasons for setting aside order after meeting the reasonings given by the subordinate authorities. It was certainly not open to the Commissioner of Land Administration to set aside a quasi-judicial order by way of an administrative letter, addressed to the Collector, that too without notice to the Petitioner. The order of the Commissioner of Land Administration is, thus, not only illegal, but also void ab initio.
The impugned order of the District Collector is based on an order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, which is held to be void for the reasons given hereinafter above.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order of the first Respondent dated 08.04.2008 is set aside.
However, liberty is granted to the Commissioner of Land Administration to take suo motu action, if so advised, to consider the legality of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, in accordance with law, as detailed above.
No costs. The connected M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2008 is closed.