AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This Writ petition is focussed to get issued a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings
NK/C4/48484/1991 dated 05.12.2005 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
Broadly, but briefly, the case of the petitioners as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:
The petitioners purchased the land under two registered sale deeds dated 01.12.2000 an extent of 1,08,900 Sq.ft in S. No. 63/5 which comprises
a larger extent of land, from Aparagitha Nachiyar and Madhuranthaga Nachiyar. The petitioners applied to the Tahsildhar for patta on
27.08.2001, but no action was taken. Thereupon, W.P. No. 24177 of 2003 was filed wherein this Court gave direction to the Tahsildhar to pass
suitable orders on the petition given by the petitioners for issuance of patta. The Tahsildhar sensing that earlier there was an order dated
21.11.2000 rejecting the prayer of the vendors'' predecessor in title for change of patta, forwarded the application to the Revenue Divisional
Officer. Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 18.11.2003 directed the transfer of patta in favour of the petitioners.
However, the Tahsildhar bye-passing such order, failed to comply with it. Thereupon, another W.P. No. 2345 of 2004 was filed in this Court,
thereupon direction vide order dated 30.09.2004 was given to the Tahsildhar to issue patta. Thereupon, the Tahsildhar issued patta, but as against
which the fourth respondent herein, filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer who by his order confirmed the
order passed by the Tahsildhar and dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the fourth respondent herein filed a revision before the first respondent who
by his proceedings dated 05.12.2005, set aside the order of the second respondent, in granting patta in favour of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the order of the first respondent dated 05.12.2005, this writ petition is focussed on the following main
grounds:
S. No. 63/5 measuring an extent of 4.75 acres happened to be the patta land over which the fourth respondent is not entitled to lay any claim. The
first respondent without having any document to demonstrate that the land over which the petitioners were claiming, was Government poramboke
land, simply discarded their claim. The first respondent over-looked the fact that the land in S. No. 63/1 were given to Raja Duraisinga Mudaliar
College, Sivagangai by Shanmuga Raja under the gift deed dated 02.03.1950 and therein S. No. 63/5 was not included. The reasoning of the first
respondent that S. No. 63/5 belongs to RDM College and the District Collector permitted the fourth respondent to put up a construction is wrong.
The first respondent also failed to consider that Ryotwari Punja Patta was issued to one Shanmuga Raja as per ''A'' Register for S. No. 63/5 which
stood in the name of Shanmuga Raja. The legal heirs of Karthikeyan Raja namely, Apparajitha Nachiar and Mathuranthaga Nachiar sold in favour
of the petitioners only an extent of 1,08,900 Sq.ft in S. No. 63/5. The civil suit in O.S. No. 35 of 2004 which emerged among the legal heirs of
Raja''s family was subsequently withdrawn. The first respondent failed to note that the proceedings dated 05.09.1989 issued by the Tahsildhar
only evidenced that in the event of the Government acquiring the lands, the fourth respondent would be permitted to put up construction. The title
to the properties cannot be decided by the Revenue authorities. The letter issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 07.06.1985 only refers
to S. No. 63/11 and not to the entire extent in S. No. 63/5. Accordingly, the petitioners pray for setting aside the impugned order of the first
respondent.
Per contra, denying and refuting the averments/allegations in the writ petition, the first respondent filed the counter with the averments which
would run thus:
(i) The Tahsildhar vide proceedings D.Dis/A6/12186/2000 dated 21.11.2000, dismissed the claim of the predecessor in title of the vendors of the
petitioners and despite that the petitioners had chosen to purchase the property from such persons. The sale deeds referred to in the petition are
invalid. Earlier, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, due to over sight gave direction in his letter dated 18.11.2003 to the Tahsildhar for
transfer of patta to the petitioners on the ground that the land in S. No. 63/5 is different from the land donated by the then Raja of Sivagangai. The
land in S. No. 63/5 is under the possession of the fourth respondent, who filed the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, who
in turn erroneously dismissed it. The land in S. No. 63/1 measuring an extent of 215.69 acres in Melavaniyangudi, Sivagangai Taluk, originally
belonged to Raja of Sivagangai Zamin and it was donated to the Secretary of Management Committee to the RDM College, Sivagangai, in the
year 1950 by a gift deed registered in No. 2349 of 1950 dated 02.11.1950. The Secretary of the Management Committee of the said college in
turn, re-conveyed the property to the RDM College for use as intended by the Donar Shanmuga Raja through a valid deed registered in number
1009 dated 05.05.1953. As such, the land in S. No. 63/1 and all the properties were under the possession and control of R.D.M College,
Sivagangai.
(ii) In the year 1981, the whole administration of the R.D.M. College was taken over by the Government as per G.O.Ms. No. 1045 Education
Department dated 08.06.1981 with all its assets and liabilities including the lands in S. No. 63/1 and 63/5 on 01.07.1981. Thereafter, the revenue
records of those lands were recorded in the name of R.D.M. College in patta No. 292, in the village accounts.
(iii) The land in S. No. 63/5 is a Government Poramboke and necessary consent from the Director of Collegiate Education had been obtained and
the Medical Department was given with the land in S. No. 63/5. The land to an extent of 1.05 acres in S. No. 63/5 was already sold to Agro Co-
op Service Society by the then R.D.M. College Management Committee vide Collector Proceedings C5/106152/86 dated 31.08.1988 for the
construction of new buildings. The possession of the land was also handed over by the Tahsildar, Sivagangai to the then District Medical Officer,
Sivagangai on 09.09.1988 and one Officer Quarters has also been constructed in the said S. No. 63/5. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of
the writ petition.
Heard both sides in entirety.
The point for consideration is as to whether the impugned order vide NK/C4/48484/1991 dated 05.12.2005 by the first respondent is in
accordance with law?
The Point:
A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane to resolve the apple of discard between the parties would run thus:
On the one hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the predecessors in title of the petitioners, namely Aparagitha Nachiyar
and Madhuranthaga Nachiyar are the legal heirs of Karthikeyan Raja who happened to be the legal descendant of Shanmuga Raja. Placing
reliance on the ''A'' Register, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to page No. 7 of the additional typed
set of papers and highlight that only as per G.O.Ms. No. 2302, Revenue, dated 1st September 1951, Mel Vaniyankudi was taken over with effect
from 01.10.1951 and that such entries in ''A'' Register emerged subsequent to the said donation deed 02.11.1950 executed by Shanmuga Raja in
favour of the Educational Trust. Despite such execution of the said donation in the year 1950 in the ''A'' Register which emerged later, S. No. 63/5
measuring an extent of 5.75 acres was shown in the name of the said Shanmuga Raja.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners would also highlight that oblivious of this stark reality, the first respondent simply assumed and presumed
as though S. No. 63/1 which happened to be the subject matter of the donation deed of the year 1950, included within it an extent of 5.75 acres in
S. No. 63/5 also. According to the first respondent, the donation of S. No. 63/1 measuring an extent of 215.69 acres of land includes S. No. 63/5
measuring an extent of 5.75 acres and consequently, the first respondent went to the extent of understanding as though S. No. 63/5 also got
included in it and accordingly, he set aside the order of the authorities below.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners would also highlight that the first respondent was very much carried away by the wrong notion as though
the petitioners are laying claim over the building constructed by the Medical Department consequent upon the assignment given to it. The aforesaid
two sale deeds in favour of the petitioners would not refer to any building at all. But, it refers to an extent of 2.50 acres of vacant land and not any
building. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not laying any claim over the building which was constructed
by the Medical Department and they want only 2.50 acres which they purchased in part of S. No. 63/5. He would develop his argument that with
open mind the Revenue authorities could very well revisit the property concerned and locate the property specified in the aforesaid two sale deeds
and grant patta only relating to that much extent and not to the entire extent covered under S. No. 63/5.
The learned Government Pleader would submit that necessary directions might be given to the first respondent to revisit the suit property and
do the needful. If really, Shanmuga Raja had donated the extent of 5.75 acres also in S. No. 63/5, as per the donation deed dated 02.11.1950,
then there would be no rhyme or reason in specifying the name of Shanmuga Raja in the ''A'' Register which emerged during the year 1951 relating
to the extent of 5.75 acres in S. No. 63/5. Apparently, this aspect was not considered by the first respondent. Even in the counter, he proceeds
only on one ground that the donation of the year 1950 covers the extent of 5.75 acres referred to in S. No. 63/5. He would also in his order
simply referred to S. No. 63/11 as the one which was given to the Medical Department. According to him, S. No. 63/1 underwent various sub-
divisions and one such sub-division is S. No. 63/11 which was handed over to the Health Department.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners would not lay claim over S. No. 63/11, but they would claim right over
the extent of 2.50 acres in S. No. 63/5 which is capable of being located, de hors the area covered by the existing building.
Furthermore, in page No. 4 of the Counter, the first respondent has gone to the extent of referring to particulars relating to before settlement
and after settlement. According to the first respondent, the four sub-divisions namely S. Nos. 63/1, 63/2, 63/3 and 63/4 are totally measuring
219.48 acres. But, S. No. 63/5 is not to be seen at all, whereas in after settlement particulars, the first respondent refers to one sub-division S.
No. 64/5 and various other sub divisions and the first respondent was trying to equate the said total extent of 219.48 acres which is attributable to
S. No. 63/1 to 63/4 before settlement to the same Survey Numbers after settlement by adding various five other sub-divisions namely S. Nos.
64/5, 65/6, 66/7, 63/8, 63/9 and it is not readily known as to how that could be equated. Apparently, there is no clarity at all.
Hence, in these circumstances, the order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for reconsidering the matter
in the light of the observations set out supra and also the grounds set out in this writ petition. Due opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to
make representations in this regard in person as well also through their Counsel and thereupon, the matter shall be finalised. Before arriving at any
conclusion, let the property be revisited and it shall be demarcated in accordance with the description found in the aforesaid two sale deeds of the
writ petitioners. The first respondent is directed to deal with the matter and arrive at a conclusion within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.