AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Messrs. T.G. Krishnamurtuy, Ven-kataramanujam and Kuppusamy, as landless poor, were each assigned an extent of five acres of land in S,
Nos. 80/7, 80/8 and 80/9 of Thazhambur village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District, by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu
(Respondent 4) in his proceedings D.K.T No. 34/74 dated 25-3-1965. M/s. Yoshonand Enterprises, has a partnership firm, located at Madras
(Petitioner) was stated to have purchased the said lands from each of the assignees for valuable consideration under registered sale deeds dated
30-7-1976, 21-7-1976 and 22-7-1976 respectively. On and from the date of the purchases, the petitioner, it is said, entered into possession and
had been cultivating those lands. While so, the Sub-Collector, Chengalpattu (respondent 1) in his proceedings Rc. No. 747/80/ dated 9-5-1981
ordered cancellation of the assignments made favor of the respective original assignees, while considering review of past cases of assignments on
the ground that those assignees have sold the lands in question within ten years from the date of assignments.
On coming to know of the cancellation of those assignments in favor of the original assignees, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District
Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District at Kanchee- puram (respondent 2), who, in turn by his order in Rc. No. 3003/82-B4 dated 4-6-1982
dismissed the appeal.
Without leaving the matter the petitioner further agitated by filing a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,
Madras-5 (respondent 3). The Commissioner, as a matter of fact, found that the condition not to dispose of the lands in question within ten years
has not been included either in the ''D'' Form patta or in the proceedings of assignment and above all. the impugned sales had taken place in the
year 1976, that is, after ten years of assignment in the year 1965. So saying, he would observe that there is no violation of any condition in this
case and therefore, the order of the District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu District at Kancheepuram (respondent 2) directing cancellation of the
assignments on this ground alone is not correct. He would, however, affirm the order of cancellation of assignment favour of the original assignees
on a different ground that the Tahsildar, who passed the orders of assignment, was not having the requisite jurisdiction to pass necessary orders
there for, in as much there was a ban imposed for such assignment of lands in G.O Ms. No. 1135, Revenue, dated 17-3-1962. This sort of a
reasoning is couched in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his order, dated 28-3-1984 in D. Dis, E. 33310/82 (RP No. 23/82) which runs as under;-
In this connection, it is seen that in G.O. Ms. No. 1135, Revenue, dt. 17-3-62, the Government have imposed a ban on assignment of lands,
other than encroachments by huts and sivojama occupation within a radius of 20 mile, around Madras City. Thazhambur village in this case is one
of the village, within the belt area. Hence the assignment made in this case is contrary to Government''s orders and without jurisdiction and hence
irregular-
The assignment has been ordered by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, when he has not jurisdiction to do so and he has exceeded his powers in
ordering the assignment as per B.S. O. 15 (18). In the circumstances, though the order of the District Revenue Officer, confirming the orders of
Sub Collector, canceling the assignment on different grounds, without proper examination and without proper notice to assignees and to the
successors in title Is improper one, as explained in para 6 above, the assignment given should be cancelled on the sole ground that the Tahsildar,
Chengatpattu has no jurisdiction to assign the land as per G O. Ms. No. 1135, Revenue, dt. 17-3-62. The Revision petition preferred by M/s.
Yoshonand Enterprises is rejected accordingly. The stay granted in this Office E2/RP, 23/82 dt. 2-8-82 is also vacated.
Aggrieved, the petitioner resorted to the present action under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a Writ of Certified Mandamus
to quash the aforesaid proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 and to forbear them from interfering with the petitioner''s ownership, possession and
enjoyment of the lands in question.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would first and foremost contend that the original indictment in the show cause notice issued to the
original assignees that the assignments made in their favour are liable to be cancelled, for the reason of the alienations of the assigned properties
within a period of ten years from the date of assignment, on which the initial authority set aside the order of assignment, followed it up by
confirmation of such an order by the appellate authority not having been approved by the revisional authority, who, however, on a different ground
of the assignments having been made by the authority, without having requisite jurisdiction, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, under
the salient provisions adumbrated under paragraph 18 of BSO 15 sorting aside the assignments behind the back of either the original assignees or
their successor-in-title by his order dated 28-2-84-is not sustainable in law as a consequence of the same being barred by limitation, as such an
action has been initiated beyond the period of three years from the date of the original assignments, besides suffering from the violation of the
primordial requisite of the non-observance of the principles of natural justice, in the sense of not giving him adequacy of opportunity to meet such a
ground. He would next contend that persons similarly situated had. been favored with the reassignment of lands, by the Government, by-setting
aside the orders of cancellation earlier made and the consideration of the case of either the original assignees or their successor-in-title, on a
different footing, in the sense of refusing to set aside the earlier order of cancellation of assignments is nothing but the arbitrary exercise of power
tan amounting to hostile discrimination. Coming within the tentacles of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of such a submission, implicit
reliance is sought to be placed on G.O.Ms. No. 34, Revenue Department, dated 9-1-1989, wherein the Government reassigned to one
Rajalakshmi, the legal heir of late Nainiappan, a freedom fighter, and three acres of land in S. No. 163/3 of Thazhambur village, Chengalpattu
Taluk, after setting aside the cancellation of the assignment earlier made.
Learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents would, however, repel those submissions.
There is no pale of controversy that the basis on which the cancellation of the assignments by the initial as well as the appellate authority was
made was not at all sustained by the revisional authority, who would however confirm the order of cancellation on a different ground that the
authority, who passed the order of assignment in favour of the original assignees, was not having the requisite jurisdiction. It is not as if such a suo
motu power of revision cannot at all be exercised by the revisional authority and this aspect of the matter is made clear by the sanguine provisions
contained in paragraph 18 of BSO. 15. According to the said paragraph, the Board of Revenue or the Government may set aside, cancel or in any
way modify the decision of any authority subordinate to them within three years, if they are satisfied that the decision was grossly inequitable. It is
further provided that they may exercise similar powers without any limit of time, where there has been material irregularity in the procedure or
where the decision exceeded the powers of the Officer, who passed it or where it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or
misrepresentation.
In the instant case, as already stated, suo motu power had been invoked on the ground of the authority, which passed the order of assignments,
was not having the requisite jurisdiction. Such a power is capable of being exercised without any limit of time and therefore it is, to say that the suo
motu exercise of powers by the revisional authority in setting aside the order of assignments in favour of the original assignees far beyond the
period of three years from the date of the original assignments is not sustainable, cannot at all be countenanced.
G.O. Ms. No. 1135, Revenue Department, dated 17th March, 1962 imposes a ban for assignment of lands within a radius of twenty miles,
excluding the encroachments of the porambokes by way of residential huts for considerably long time and assessed waste land occupied by
Sivoijama occupation. The relevant file relatable to the said G.O. has been produced for perusal of this Court and what emerges from such a
perusal is that the said G.O. had not at all been gazette; but what had been done was that copies of the said G.O. had been communicated to all
the officers Concerned, in a bid to give them adequate information as respects the ban of assign-Merit. It is further revealed that list villages situate
within the radius of tweet miles, as indicated in the GO. had been communicated to all those officers, That than bur is one of the villages situate with
the ban area, as per the annexed list The fact that certain extent of lands hud been reassigned, situate within Thazhambur: village to a specified
individual, as state in G.O. Ms. No. 34 dated 9-1-1989, after setting aside the earlier orders of cancellation'' of assignment cannot at all be relied
on the petitioner for invoking to its all a piece of hostile discrimination in violation of the provisions of Art. 14 of the constitution of India. The
reason is obtained One wrong cannot make right another wrong. The fact that one wrong had been committed by the Government in making the
assignment of lands within the banned area does not justify for this Count make an order that the Government should repeat the same wrong, in the
sense reassignment of the lands in question in favor of the original assignees, after setting aside the cancellation of the assignment earlier made. If
done it wrong tantamount to perpetuation of commission of wrongs or illegalities by the Government under the authority of the Court the position of
law is so settled that the san guinea provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution cannot be sought in aid to perpetuate the continuance of the wrong or
illegality on the ground of hostile discrimination or arbitrary exercise of power. No doubt true it is that what exercising the suo motu power of
revision in refusing to set aside the earlier order of cancellation of assignments made in favor of the original assignees, predecessors title of the
petitioner, on the ground want of jurisdiction on the part of the authority, who made the assignment, no opportunity had been given to the
petitioner, to meet such a ground and this is sought to be attacked on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, in the sense of the
petitioner not being heard on such a ground. Only on this short ground, the order of the revision authority cannot at all be sustained and therefore
such an order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is however remitted back to the revision authority for passing
appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving adequacy of opportunity to the petitioner to meet the new ground stated to have been
invented by the revisional authority whilst disposing of the revision. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs