V. Renuka Devi v. The Commissioner Land Administration

JUDGMENT [Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

(1)This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2023 made in WP.No.5810/2023, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 04.07.2022 and to direct the respondents to make necessary changes in the revenue records by recording the name of the writ petitioner/appellant as owner in respect of lands measuring an extent of 3 acres comprised in S.Nos.503/1, 503/2, 503/8, 519/3 and 519/4 at Perungalathur Village, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:-

(3)The appellant purchased the entire extent of three acres comprised in S.Nos.503/1, 503/2, 503/8, 519/3 and 519/4 at Perungalathur Village, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District under a Sale Deed dated 28.04.2003 from one Gopal. The appellant's vendor got assignment of the said lands as per the Deed of Assignment in the year 1991. Patta had been issued in the name of appellant's vendor originally in the year 1994. Thereafter, patta was changed in the name of the appellant in the year 2006. Later, the name of some of the third party was included as pattadar along with the appellant in the revenue records. Since the land was originally assigned by the Government, the matter was referred to the Commissioner, Land Administration. The Commissioner, Land Administration, however held that the lands which are assigned in favour of appellant's vendor, had been alienated without the permission of the Government and therefore, the assignment should be cancelled and lands should be resumed from the person in possession. The Commissioner,

Land Administration, taking note of the fact that the lands assigned in favour of depressed class people, held that alienation in favour of appellant without permission of the Government, renders assignment liable for cancellation. Therefore, the Commissioner, Land Administration directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate steps to restore the land. Pursuant to this, the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 04.07.2022 passed an order directing resumption of land from the appellant and to convert the classification of land as ''Anaadeenam''. A further direction was also issued to the revenue officials to the effect that the land should be registered in the Prohibitory Book. Challenging the order of District Collector, the appellant filed the writ petition for the relief above referred.

(4)The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the fact that the land was originally assigned in favour of depressed class people and the same has been sold to the vendor of the appellant who has owned a residence in Mylapore, came to the conclusion that the assignee who got the land free of land value, sold it in violation of Rules and Regulations. Learned Single Judge has not referred to any specific violations.

(5)This Court considered the assignment in favour of appellant.

(6)Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon clauses 3 and 8 of the original Assignment which read as follows:- ''3/fth;dbkz;lhUila mDkjpapy;yhky; b& epyj;ij ,e;jpa a[{dpad; FoahfthtJ ahbjhU ,e;jpa rk!;jhdj;ijr; nrh;e;j FoahfthtJ ,uhj xU egUf;Fg; guhjPdk; bra;jhy;.

,e;j

xg;gil bryhtzaw;wjhfptpLk;/ /// 8/b&

epykhdJ

xg;gilapd; njjpapypUe;J gj;J tUl fhyj;Jf;Fs; tpw;gid. jhdk;. milkhdk; my;yJ ahbjhU tifahd Fj;jif K:ykhf ve;j egUf;fhfpYk; guhjPdk; bra;ag;gl;lhYk;. jhH;j;jg;gl;l tFg;g[fis nrh;e;jtuhapuhj xUtUf;F me;j fhyj;Jf;Fg; gpwF guhjPdk; bra;ag;gl;lhYk;. rl;lrk;ge;jkhd g;uh!!; vd;Dk; fl;lisg;goahtJ kw;wg;goahtJ tpw;gid bra;ag;gl;lJ fhuzkhfg; gpujk xg;giljhuUf;nfh mtUila rl;lrk;ge;jkhd thhpRfSf;nfh

my;yJ

(b&

gj;J tUc&';fSf;Fg;

gpwF)

jhH;j;jg;gl;l o tFg;g[fisr; nrh;e;j kw;wth;fSf;nfh brhe;jkhapuhkw; ngha;tpl;lhYk; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l njjpfspy; fth;d;bkz;l; jPh;itia brYj;jj; jtwpg;ngha;tpl;lhYk; b& xg;gil epyk; fth;d;bkz;lhuhy; jpUg;gp vLj;Jf; bfhss; g;gLtjw;F cl;gl;ljhFk;/ mg;nghJ fth;d;bkz;lhh; ahbjhU gpujpgyd; bfhLf;fhkny my;yJ fpua gzj;ij thg!; bra;ahkny b& epyj;jpy; kWgoa[k; gpuntrpj;J mij RthjPzg;gLj;jpf; bfhss; ghj;jpaij cs;sth;fshthh;fs;/ MapDk; ,e;j jilahdJ gpu!;jhg epyj;ij epytpUj;jp rk;ge;jkhd fld;fis Fwpj;j Mflo; d;goa[k; tptrhapfSf;F fld; bfhLg;gij gw;wpa Mfl;od;goa[k; fth;d;bkz;lhUf;fhtJ jhH;j;jg;gl;l tFg;ghiur; nrh;e;jth;fs; khj;jpunk bkk;gh;fshapUf;Fk; ahbjhU Tl;Lwt[ r';fj;Jf;fhtJ ?Lf;fhlo; f; bfhJit itg;gjw;F gpunahrdglkhl;lhJ/ md;wpa[k; epybkLj;Jf;bfhs;tijf; Fwpj;j Mf;od;go b& epy';fs; gpw;gl;L milgLk;nghJ gpujpgyd; brYj;jg;gLtJ b& jilapdhy; ghjpf;fg;glkhl;lhJ/ nkny Fwpg;gpl;lgo xg;gil epyj;ijj; jpUk;g

vLj;Jf;bfhs;tjw;Fk;

mjpy;

kWgoa[k; gpuntrpf;Fk;go cj;jut[ bra;atjw;FKs;s mjpfhukhdJ

butpd;a[

otpb&dy; Mgprhhplj;jpy; rkh;g;gpf;Fk;/''

(7)Clause 3 of the Assignment refers to prohibition to alienate the land in favour of anyone who is not a citizen of this Country or Union Territory / States. Clause 8 though prohibits alienation within a period of ten years of assignment, permits alienation in favour another depressed class after ten years. It is not in dispute that the appellant is also a person belongs to depressed class and therefore, alienation in favour of the appellant is not contrary to clause 8.

(8)Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the land was not brought under cultivation within the period specified in the order. Even though learned Additional Advocate General relied upon general conditions, this Court is unable to find any violation merely because the land is sold in favour of appellant after 11th year. Even though the general conditions in respect of assignment in other categories was relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court cannot rely upon those conditions which do not form part of assignment that was given in

favour of appellant's vendor. The order of Commissioner, Land Administration as well as the District Collector refers to a condition that there cannot be any alienation without the permission of the Government. Such condition is not there in the assignment. When the terms and conditions of assignment does not refer to the condition which was presumed to be mandatory by respondents, this Court is unable to sustain the order impugned in this writ appeal.

(9)Even though the learned Additional Advocate General relies upon a few other conditions and submitted that the assignment is liable to be cancelled for violation of such conditions, this Court finds no relevance to those conditions which do not form part of the assignment. Learned Additional Advocate General tried to impress this Court by referring to something which was never pleaded or not relied upon or cited as a reason to cancel the assignment and resuming the land from the appellant.

(10)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohindhr Singh Gill and Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [1978 [1] SCC 405], has reiterated the position that ''every action should be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons in

the shape of affidavits have to be excluded.''

(11)Since the law is settled, this Court cannot examine any other grounds which are not cited as reason for resumption of land by official respondents.

(12)For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal stands allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2023 made in WP.No.5810/2023 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.

(13)The Tahsildar / 6th respondent herein is directed to restore patta in the name of the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.S.S.R., J.] [P.D.B., J.]

26.11.2024 AP Internet : Yes

To

1.The Commissioner, Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-5.

2.The District Collector Ranipet District.

3.The Sub Collector Ranipet District.

4.The District Revenue Officer Ranipet District.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

6.The Tahsildar Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

7.The Village Administrative Officer Perungalathur Village, Ranipet District.

S.S. SUNDAR,

J.,

and P.DHANABAL, J., AP

26.11.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL WA.No.3261/2023 & CMP.No.26557/2023 V.Renuka Devi ... Appellant Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The District Collector Ranipet District. 3.The Sub Collector Ranipet District. 4.The District Revenue Officer Ranipet District. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District. 6.The Tahsildar Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District. 7.The Village Administrative Officer Perungalathur Village, Ranipet District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.09.2023 made in WP.No.5810/2023. For Appellant : Mr.M.Deivanandam For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlaal, AAG assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar,AGP