AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, Actg. C.J. and K. Venkataraman, J.—The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for issuance of writ of
Prohibition, prohibiting and forbearing the first respondent from conducting suo motu revision proceedings initiated by him in his proceedings dated
22.11.2012. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, are set out hereunder:-
(a) The land measuring an extent of 1.84 acre in S. No. 18/3, Hasthampatty Village, Salem District was under the possession and enjoyment of
one Venga Gounder for several decades. He is the first petitioner''s husband''s great grand father. The said land has been in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the first petitioner''s family for more than 80 years. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram granted patta in favour of the
first petitioner in his proceedings dated 27.3.2001 u/s 11(a) and 12(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari)
Act, 1948.
(b) While so, the officers of the Salem Corporation attempted to interfere with the possession of the first petitioner in November, 2003 and hence,
she has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 37747 of 2003 for a mandamus forbearing them from dispossessing her except by due
process of law. The said writ petition was admitted and an order of interim injunction was granted on 23.12.2003 and the same is still pending.
(c) The first petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner and from that date, he is in possession and enjoyment of the
property. He has also filed an application to substitute himself in the place of first petitioner in W.P. No. 37747 of 2003.
(d) While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice fixing the date of hearing as 22.11.2012 purporting to be a suo motu revision against
the order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, and called upon the petitioners to offer their explanation as to
why the said order cannot be cancelled.
The petitioners, therefore, challenging the same, have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
The grounds raised thereon are:
(i) When the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram granted patta in favour of the first petitioner, the first respondent has no power to initiate
suo motu revision proceedings for cancellation of the said order.
(ii) Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 contemplates that suo motu revision could be
made cancelling or revising the order of the Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, which means, if
an appeal remedy is provided, suo motu revision cannot be taken.
(iii) The first respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings against an order which was passed ten years back.
Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein the following contentions have been raised:-
(a) The Assistant Settlement Officer has no power to entertain any application under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948, after the rules to the Act have been amended in G.O. Ms. No. 714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments
Department dated 29.6.1987, fixing the last date as 20.8.1987 to apply patta after condoning the delay.
(b) The District Collector, Salem in his letter dated 2.1.2004 has brought the illegitimate order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Dharapuram to the Commissioner of Land Administration and requested him to cancel the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and hence, suo
motu revision was taken up by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and notice has been caused to the petitioner.
(c) When the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an order without power or jurisdiction under the Act, the petitioners cannot question the
jurisdiction of the first respondent.
Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
On the basis of the pleadings referred to above, we have heard Mr. R. Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. A.
Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The indisputable facts are that patta was granted in favour of the first petitioner for the property in question, by the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Dharapuram, by an order dated 27.3.2001. The first respondent has caused a show cause notice to the petitioners to explain as to why the said
order should not be cancelled.
The question that arises for consideration is, whether the suo motu revision as envisaged under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Estate
(Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the Act) is valid or not.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that when the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram has granted patta
in favour of the first petitioner as early as 27.3.2001, the same cannot be set at naught by the first respondent by causing a show cause notice
dated 22.11.2012, that too, after a period of nearly 11 years. He has also contended that under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act, such suo motu
power can be exercised by the first respondent only if there is no appeal is provided against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. But,
however, an appeal remedy is available u/s 15 of the Act against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. While so, the power to revise the
order of the Assistant Settlement Officer cannot be exercised suo motu by the first respondent exercising power under clause (c) of Section 7 of
the Act.
Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that when the Assistant Settlement Officer has no
jurisdiction to grant patta in favour of the first petitioner, definitely the same can be revised by the first respondent, by taking recourse under clause
(c) of Section 7 of the Act. She has also relied on the decision reported in M. Veeraswamy Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Madras- 5, The Director of Settlement and The Assistant Settlement Officer Narimedu. Madurai , and the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court reported in The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. Arumugam,
In the decision reported in 1996 Writ. L.R. 554, the question that arose for consideration was, whether suo motu revision u/s 7(c) of the Act
can be exercised without an application for revising the order of the lower authority. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said decision, has held
that the said proviso does not contemplate any specific application and the Board could exercise its revisional power under clause (c) of Section 7
of the Act without an application by any one.
The matter in question came up before the Full Bench of this Court since in the decision reported in The Director of Survey and Settlement,
Chepauk, Madras-5 Vs. Ramadoss a Division Bench of this Court has held that Director of Settlement has no suo motu power of revision against
the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer without an application for such revision and in the latter decision reported in 1996 Writ. L.R. 554,
another Division Bench of this Court has held that such power can be exercised under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act even without an
application for revising the order of the lower authority. In view of the conflicting decisions found thereon, a Full Bench was constituted and the Full
Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. Arumugam, , has
affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 1996 Writ. L.R. 554, that is to say, that the Full Bench has held that the
view taken by the Division Bench in the said decision that the power can be exercised even without an application for revising the order of the
lower authority, has been upheld.
But, however, in the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioners that suo motu revision cannot be taken by the first respondent exercising
the power under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act without an application before him. The point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that such power could be exercised in a case other than an appeal remedy is available. In order to appreciate the
said contention, it would be useful to extract clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act and the same is extracted hereunder:-
Powers of control of the Board of Revenue:-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of any Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to be
Tribunal or of any managers; and
(d) ...
The said provision clearly contemplates that the Board of Revenue shall have the power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings
of any Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal or of any managers. That means, if the remedy of
appeal is provided under the Act to challenge the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the suo motu revision cannot be taken up exercising
power under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act.
In the given case on hand, it is not the case of the respondents that there is no appeal remedy against the order of the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Dharapuram. Section 15 of the Act clearly spells out that against the decision of the Settlement Officer, an appeal will lie before the
Government. It would be, therefore useful to extract the said provision and the same is extracted hereunder:-
Determination of lands in which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta under foregoing provisions:-(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine
the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta u/s 12, 13 or 14 as the case may be, and decide in
respect of which lands the claim should be allowed.
(2) (a) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Government may, within one year from the date of commencement
of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1954, or from the date of the decision, whichever is later,
and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within two months from the date, appeal to the Tribunal;
Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding six months from the filing of any such appeal;
Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it appears to the Tribunal that the
decision of the Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact.
(b) The decision of the Tribunal on any such appeal shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law.
A reading of clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act coupled with Section 15 of the Act will make it amply clearly that suo motu revision could be
entertained by the first respondent, if there is no appeal remedy available to challenge the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. In the case on
hand, since the appeal remedy is available as provided u/s 15 of the Act, in our considered view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the suo motu revision will not lie before the first respondent.
We may add that the power given to an authority under an Act or Rule has to be exercised strictly only in accordance with the mode provided
therein. It cannot be denied that the power clothing with an authority through the legislation has to be exercised within the four corners of its
conferment. It cannot be travelled beyond that. The language employed in the provisions of an Act can be interpreted only if there is any ambiguity
and the Courts have no power to enter into the field of presumption or assumption. Absolutely there is no possibility to travel beyond what has
been set out in the provisions to a statue. Therefore, in our considered view, when clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act clearly spells out that suo
motu revision could be exercised for cancelling or revising the order passed by the Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an
appeal lies before the Tribunal, leaving the remedy available u/s 15 of the Act, which envisages an appeal, the first respondent has no legal right to
entertain suo motu revision, that too, after nearly 11 years from the date of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram.
The Courts are normally bound to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the statute, unless and otherwise such an interpretation
leads to some absurd or illogical consequence or is in variance with the intention of the legislature. In this connection, the judgment reported in
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, of the said judgment is usefully extracted here under:-
Nextly, the Commission has elaborately discussed the object of introduction of Chapter XIX-A in the Act, the history behind the introduction
and schematic rationalisation of the provisions of Chapter XIX-A brought about through the Finance Act, 1987 to hold that in exercising its power
under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the
object and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise, in our opinion, if the language of the statute is either ambiguous or conflicting
or gives a meaning leading to absurdity. We do no find any such problem in the provisions of the Act to which we have already referred to...
That apart, it has to be seen that it is not the case of the respondents that the first petitioner has played fraud on the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Dharapuram and got patta in her favour.
For all the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent exercising
power under clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act is liable to be set aside. In fine, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.11.2012
is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.