The Court allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the impugned land was never acquired as surplus land under the Land Ceiling Act and ordered the restoration of the patta in her name.
Writ petition allowed; declaration that the land was not acquired; direction to restore the patta in the petitioner's name.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018 and
W.M.P(MD)No.5368 of 2018
R.Bala Krishnaveni
... Petitioner
Vs.
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
6.M/s.Sarjan Realities Limited, No.225/10, Koregoen Park, Behind Singh Motors, Near GVL Jupiter, Pune – 411 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the petitioner's land in Survey No.1465/3 in Veppilankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District has not been compulsorily acquired by the respondents in terms of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to restore the patta in respect of the said land in the name of the petitioner.
(Prayer amended vide order of this Court dated 23.10.2024 in W.M.P(MD).20452 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018)
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Athiff for Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for declaring the petitioner's land in
Survey No.1465/3 in Veppilankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District has not been compulsorily acquired by the respondents in terms of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of
2/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to restore the patta in respect of the said land in the name of the petitioner.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in Survey No. 1465/3 in Veppilankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli belonged to her father-in-law Ramasubba Rayalu Reddiyar by virtue of a deed executed in his favour bearing Document No.1116/1953. Originally, the property was comprised in Survey No.1465 measuring an extent of 14 acres and 13 cents. It was later subdivided into Survey No. 1465/1 measuring 3 acres 47 cents, Survey No.1465/2 measuring 4 acres and Survey No.1465/3 measuring 6 acres 83 cents. The property was in the possession and control of the said Ramasubba Rayalu Reddiyar under the refixation of land ceiling. Some of the ancestral properties of the petitioner was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Hereafter referred to Land Ceiling Act). Under the proceedings initiated under this Act, the property measuring 17 acres in Survey No.1458, 2.31 acres in Survey No.640/1B and 1.38 acres in Survey No.640/C were taken under the Land Ceiling Act. Without acquiring the lands in Survey No.1465/3 measuring an extent of 6 acres
3/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
and 83 cents, it was transferred by way of assignment illegally to one Esakkimuthu, S/o. Madan. The petitioner's father-in-law approached the concerned authorities in this regard. Since the petitioner's father-in-law did not received proper response from the authorities, he had requested information under the RTI Act. By reply dated 30.01.2009, the Joint Commissioner of Land Reforms, Tirunelveli informed the petitioner's father-in-law that the lands in Survey No.1465/3 was not acquired under the Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner's father-in-law had executed a Will bequeathing his property upon the petitioner and he died on 22.11.2013. The petitioner came to know about these proceedings only when she was checking of her father-in-law's records. The petitioner came to know that Esakkimuthu in whose name the property had been transferred had subsequently transferred the same to one Durairaj and Durairaj in turn had sold the properties to one private firm. These illegal activities are challenged by one Nagarajan in W.P(MD)No.1031 of 2012 stating that there was a violation of a assignment condition under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The Court therefore directed the second respondent to consider his representation and pass orders on merits within a period of four months. Thereafter, it appears that the assignment in favour of Esakkimuthu has been
4/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
cancelled. This is the subject matter of W.P(MD)No.14418 of 2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner had sent representation dated 19.01.2018 to the respondents to take necessary action to return the property by restoring
the patta. Since no action has been taken and the respondents are illegally retaining the lands of the petitioner, this Writ Petition for declaration has been filed.
3.The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The counter affidavit is absolutely silent as to the land not being notified under the Land Ceiling Act. They had also moved the State on the basis of Ramasubba Rayalu Reddiyar's representation dated 21.10.2009. He was called for enquiry. However, he did not file any document to show proof and he had not turned up for the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle to the relief claimed.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5.The surplus lands of Ramasubba Rayalu Reddiyar declared in the
notification under the Land Ceiling Act in G.O(Ms)No.3039 Revenue
5/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
dated 13.05.1973 describes only the lands in Survey No.1458/2 in Veppilankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli and the lands in Survey Nos.640/1B and 640/1C in Radhapuram Village. The notification does not make any reference to the lands in Survey No.1465/3. That apart, in answer to the query under the Right to Information Act, the following statement has been made:
“jpU.Mh;.,uhkRg;guhaY bul;oahh; vd;gtuJ epy clikfspypUe;J ,uhjhg[uk; tl;lk>; ntg;gpyhq;Fsk; fpuhkj;jpy; murhiz vz;.3039> tUtha; ehs; 30.05.73-d; go cghpahf mwptpf;fg;gl;l murpjH; efy; ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,jpy; m.g[.r.vz;.1465/3 ,lk; bgwtpy;iy. vdnt> ,e;j murpjHpy; cz;ikahd epy clikahd epy clikjhuh; bgah; tpguk; ,y;iy vd;w tpguKk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent would clearly shows that the lands in question had not been declared as surplus land. Reference can be made to the following statements:
“2. I Submit that it is an admitted fact that the land is situated in Survey No.1465 to an extent of 14 acres 30 cents in Veppillankulam Part II Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and thereafter it was subdivided 1465/1 having an extent of 3 acres 47 cents, 1465/2 having an extent of 4 acres and 1465/3 having an extent of 6 acres 83 cents.
6/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
3. I submit that during the notification under Tamilnadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Land) surplus land of Thiru.R.Ramasubburaualu Reddiar land was notified under fixation under G.O.Ms.No.3039, revenue dated 30.05.1973 and as per the said notification the property of above said R.Ramasubburayalu Reddiar was taken, which lies in S.No.1458P/2 to an extent of 17.80 acres, 640/1B to an extent of 2.31 acers, 640/1C to an extent of 1.38 acres which lies in Veppillankulam Part II village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.”
Therefore, even without declaring the lands as surplus, the respondents have high-handedly taken over the lands and assigned it to one Esakkimuthu. The entire act of the respondents has to be declared as illegal.
6.This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA
7/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
To
8/9
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018
P.T.ASHA, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.5437 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.5368 of 2018
28.10.2024
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's land was compulsorily acquired under the Land Ceiling Act and if not, whether the patta should be restored.
Whether the transfer of the land to Esakkimuthu was illegal due to violation of assignment conditions under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Bala Krishnaveni
Commissioner of Land Reforms
District Collector, Tirunelveli District
District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District
Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Ceiling Office)
Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
