Allowed

Vijayalakshmi v. The Revenue Secretary

Madras HC23 Jul 2024WP/9675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order on three writ petitions set aside a revenue officer's mutation order that altered facts regarding pending appeals. The court quashed the order due to malice, lack of merit, and an onus on the officer, noting the petitioner had previously admitted the validity of the challenged orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.12.2021 is quashed. No relief on account of mutation of records. Connected W.M.P.s are closed.

Vijayalakshmi Vs The Revenue Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022 AND W.M.P.Nos.9731, 9732, 9733 of 2023 & 12142, 12145, 6742, 6744 of 2022

W.P.No.9675 of 2023

1.Vijayalakshmi

2.Elavarasi

3.Vimala

4.Jothi .. Petitioners

¶12

¶13

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department St. George Fort Chennai 600 009

¶14

2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶15

3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶16

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Revenue Sub-Division Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶17

1/14

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶20

5.The Tasildar Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶21

6.The Village Administrative Officer Nallanahalli Village Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶22

7.Abid Basha

¶23

8.Parvathy

¶24

9.Rajalakshmi

¶25

10.Sendurapandian

11.Thirupathy

12.Vimal

13.Iswarya

14.Shanthi

15.Kumaresan

.. Respondents

¶32

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the proceedings in the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.11952/2018/U2 dated 21.12.2021 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as perverse, illegal, contrary to law and facts and also to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶33

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Uma Shankar For RR 1 to 6 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R7 : Mr.M.Guruprasad For RR 8 to 15 : No appearance

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/14

¶36

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

W.P.No.6670 of 2022

1.G.Ashok Kumar

2.Peruma

.. Petitioners

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Additional Secretary to Government Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶43

2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶44

3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶45

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Revenue Sub-Division Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶46

5.The Tasildar Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶47

6.The Village Administrative Officer Nallanahalli Village Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶48

7.Abid Basha

¶49

8.The Sub Registrar (Joint-II) Dharmapuri (R8 impleaded vide order dt.23.2.2023 made in WMP.3930 of 2023)

¶50

.. Respondents

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

3/14

¶53

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶54

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.11952/2018/U2 dated 21.12.2021 and quash the same as perverse, illegal, contrary to law and facts and also to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶55

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen For RR 1 to 6 & 8 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R7 : Mr.M.Guruprasad

W.P.No.12691 of 2022

1.Sekar

2.Krishnamoorthi

3.Suresh .. Petitioners Vs

¶60

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Chief Secretary to Government Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶61

2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶62

3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶63

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Revenue Sub-Division Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

4/14

¶66

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶67

5.The Tasildar Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶68

6.The Village Administrative Officer Nallanahalli Village Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶69

7.Abid Basha

¶70

.. Respondents

¶71

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11952/2018/U2 dated 21.12.2021 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as perverse, illegal, contrary to law and facts and also to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶72

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sundaranathan For RR 1 to 6 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R7 : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶73

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶74

Challenging the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11952/2018/U2 dated 21.12.2021 issued by the third respondent, these writ petitions have been filed.

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶76

5/14

¶77

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶78

The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as

¶79

follows:

¶80

2.1. The property which is the subject matter of patta proceedings came under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) and a suo motu enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar, Salem, as per the said Act.

¶81

2.2. Originally, ryotwari patta was issued in favour of the father of the 7^th respondent, based on the orders dated 15.06.1981 passed by the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Salem and the same was challenged in C.M.A.C.I.A.T.Nos.6/1981 to 10/1981 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Krishnagiri (in short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal, by order dated 05.11.1985, remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram.

¶82

2.3. Therefore, once again, enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram. On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, by order dated 28.06.1990, patta was issued in favour of one Ramasamy. Challenging this order along with another similar order, the father of the 7^th respondent filed C.M.A.(I.A.T.) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/14

¶83

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶84

Nos.1 and 2/1991 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 27.04.1998, dismissed the said appeals. Thereafter, it appears that the appeals preferred by the 7^th respondent's father in S.T.A.Nos.3 and 4/1999 before this Court, challenging the common judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.04.1998 are pending.

¶85

2.4. When the matter stood thus, the 7^th respondent gave a representation

¶86

to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 04.05.2004. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after analysing the various factors, viz ., patta was originally issued to the 7^th respondent's father and subsequently, on remand, in the name of Ramasamy, which was also confirmed on appeal and also pendency of S.T.As.filed thereagainst, rejected the request of the 7^th respondent and held that mutation can be effected only subject to the result of the S.T.As. pending on the file of this Court.

¶87

2.5. Now, the impugned order has been passed by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri/3^rd respondent on 21.12.2021, on a similar representation given by the 7^th respondent. The impugned order proceeded as if in the earlier rounds of litigations, the appeals were filed within a period of three months. However, the same was not done. That apart, the 3^rd respondent had proceeded

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/14

¶89

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶90

as if patta was issued only in the name of the 7^th respondent's father in the settlement proceedings and passed the impugned order.

¶91

2.6. Questioning the correctness of the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent, the legal heirs of the deceased Ramasamy and other interested parties have filed these writ petitions.

¶92

The specific contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the impugned order is ex facie illegal. After remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, by order dated 28.06.1990, issued patta in favour of Ramasamy, which is not in dispute. The said proceedings was challenged by the 7^th respondent's father in C.M.A.(I.A.T.) Nos.1 and 2/1991 before the Tribunal, were dismissed. Thereafter, he had also filed appeals before this Court. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent's finding that there is no evidence available on record in that aspect, itself is a clear non-application of mind. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel that when the S.T.As. said to have been filed are pending before this Court, mutation of records suffers from malice.

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

8/14

¶95

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶96

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the 3^rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit reiterating that as against the order dated 21.03.1970 passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Salem, in favour of the 7^th respondent's father, Ramasamy had preferred an appeal with a delay of 17 years and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, passed an order on 28.06.1990 in favour of Ramasamy. This counter in fact only supports the case of the 7^th respondent.

¶97

The 5^th respondent had also filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of the 7^th respondent.

¶98

I have perused the entire materials available on record.

¶99

The very nature of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents itself indicates that in order to support their order, they adopted the tactics in supporting the case of the 7^th respondent. This inference is more probable for the simple reason that the remand order and further enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, is not even disputed by the 7^th respondent's father. In fact, appeals were filed by the father of the

¶100

7^th respondent before the Tribunal in C.M.A.(I.A.T.) Nos.1 and 2/1991. This https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14

¶101

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶102

fact was also admitted by the 7^th respondent in his representation submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 04.05.2004, which is available in the typed set of papers.

¶103

Pursuant to the impugned order that was passed by the 3^rd respondent in favour of the 7^th respondent's father, now, a new story has been developed by the 7^th respondent, as if the very order of the Assistant Settlement Officer itself is not available on record and it appears to be a result of forgery. It is relevant to note that when the 7^th respondent had challenged that order, he had not raised any dispute with regard to the so-called alleged forgery/fabrication. The 7^th respondent, after a passage of several years, that too, after the mutation of revenue records, now submits that the order relied upon by the writ petitioners was not passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer.

¶104

It is relevant to note that when the same order was challenged by the 7^th respondent and after he suffered an order against him, now, it is too late in the day for him to raise the plea of forgery/fabrication in these writ petitions. As observed in paragraph 7, supra , when the 7^th respondent himself has admitted in his representation dated 04.05.2004 that the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer were put to challenge before the Tribunal, and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/14

¶105

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶106

challenging the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, S.T.As. were filed before this Court, now, he cannot take a different stand to contend that the very order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is a result of forgery/fabrication.

¶107

Whether there is a fabrication or forgery, it has to be proved in the manner known to law. It has to be tested by letting in evidence. Still, if the 7^th respondent is of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer which went in favour of Ramasamy, is forged and fabricated, the remedy available to him is to file an appropriate suit to annul the order, by establishing the alleged forgery/fabrication and not by mere submissions before this Court. That apart, certified copies of the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer are also placed before this Court to dispel the contention of the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent.

¶108

When the settlement proceedings, in fact, were concluded in favour of Ramasamy, as against which, the appeals filed in S.T.As. are pending, the District Revenue Officer, causing mutation of records, even after the same request was made before the Revenue Divisional Officer was rejected, creates a serious doubt about the orders and in fact, makes this Court draw a clear inference that the impugned order is not passed on merits.

¶109

11/14

¶110

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶111

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶112

In the light of the above discussion, I hold that though S.T.As. are

¶113

said to be in seizin before this Court, no records pertaining to the same are

¶114

produced before this Court.

¶115

Such being the position, challenging the revenue records cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after the impugned order came to be passed, patta was issued in favour of the 7^th respondent. It is made clear that any mutation of records taken place, will not have any effect, since the very impugned order has been quashed by this Court.

¶116

In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected

¶117

W.M.P.s are closed.

¶118

gya Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶119

23.07.2024 (1/2)

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

12/14

¶122

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶123

¶124

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department St. George Fort Chennai 600 009

¶125

2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶126

3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶127

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Revenue Sub-Division Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶128

5.The Tasildar Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶129

6.The Village Administrative Officer Nallanahalli Village Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶130

7.The Sub Registrar (Joint-II) Dharmapuri

¶131

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶132

13/14

¶133

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶134

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶135

gya

¶136

W.P.Nos.9675 of 2023 & 6670, 12691 of 2022

¶137

23.07.2024

¶138

(1/2)

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

14/14

Vijayalakshmi v. The Revenue Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi v. The Revenue Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Thahera Vs the District Collector

Banumathi Vs the Commissioner of Land Administration

Banumathi Vs the Commissioner of Land Administration

Y.Sudhakar Vs Inspector General of Registration

G.S.Senthilkumar Vs The Director

A.Abith Basha Vs The District Collector