Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. S.S Sundar of T.R Rajaraman, for Petitioner in W.P No. 2739 of 1986 and for the respondent in AAAO. No. 83 of 1986. Mr. P. Rajamanickam Additional Government Pleader on behalf respondents in the W.P No. 2739 of 1986, Mr. R.M Kannappan Rajendran, for the Appellant in AAAO. No. 83 of 1986.
Judges
  • Srinivasan
  • S.M Abdul Wahab, JJ.
Acts
  • Nadu Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
  • S. 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act.3.
  • S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
  • S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
  • Nadu Estates Abolition Act,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. S.S Sundar of T.R Rajaraman, for Petitioner in W.P No. 2739 of 1986 and for the respondent in AAAO. No. 83 of 1986. Mr. P. Rajamanickam Additional Government Pleader on behalf respondents in the W.P No. 2739 of 1986, Mr. R.M Kannappan Rajendran, for the Appellant in AAAO. No. 83 of 1986.
Judges
  • Srinivasan
  • S.M Abdul Wahab, JJ.
Acts
  • Nadu Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
  • S. 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act.3.
  • S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
  • S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
  • Nadu Estates Abolition Act,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Srinivasan, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition W.P. No. 2739 of 1986 was filed by Veeraswamy seeking certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration (Special Commissioner) in CL.A.D Dis(K) R.P 51/80 dated 14-2-1986. The lands in dispute are Survey Nos. 1094/1 (1.29 acres) and 1094/4 (33.89 acres), which were taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948 on 5-3-1954 and were registered as forest lands; notification under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and proclamation under S.6 were issued.

The petitioner's parents had earlier applied for patta under S.11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act and their claim was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 9-1-1964; that order was not challenged and became final. Later applications for patta by the petitioner and others outside the scope of the Act were rejected by the Board of Revenue under G.O.Ms No.1312 (Rev.) dated 26-7-1967, with the Board directing a revision could be filed to set aside the 1964 order; a belated revision filed was rejected on 30-6-1978.

Subsequently, Ranganayaki Ammal (described as the petitioner's sister) filed a revision under S.5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act against the 1964 order. The Director of Survey and Settlement set aside the 1964 order and remanded the matter. On remand the Assistant Settlement Officer, by order dated 21-3-1980 (also referred to as 27-3-1980 in the opinion), granted patta in favour of Ranganayaki Ammal. The petitioner challenged that order and obtained a stay; that stay was itself the subject of further proceedings and revisions, culminating in the Board of Revenue (in RP No. 51/80) sitting and on 13-9-1985 (and ultimately by order dated 14-2-1986) holding that the Director's remand and the Assistant Settlement Officer's consequential order were ab initio void in view of prior finality and earlier rejections, and the Board set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order and directed re-registration of the lands as forest poromboke.

The petitioner challenged the Board's order in W.P. No. 2739 of 1986. That writ petition was dismissed by the court. Separately, C.M.S.A No. 83 of 1986 is an appeal by the District Forest Officer, Madurai North, Theni, against the District Judge, Madurai's confirmation of an exclusion order (claim No. 1411.BNHFB dated 7-9-1983) by the Forest Settlement Officer, which had relied on the Assistant Settlement Officer's patta order dated 27-3-1980 to exclude the lands from the notified reserve forest. Because the Assistant Settlement Officer's order was set aside by the Commissioner of Land Administration and the writ challenging that setting aside was dismissed, the court allowed the C.M.S.A and set aside the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Commissioner of Land Administration's order setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's grant of patta in favour of Ranganayaki Ammal.
  2. Whether the Director of Survey and Settlement had jurisdiction to entertain a revision and remand the matter some 15 years after the Assistant Settlement Officer's 1964 order had become final.
  3. Whether the Board of Revenue (Commissioner of Land Administration) could exercise suo motu revisional powers under S.7(c) and S.7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act to cancel or set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order.
  4. Whether the Assistant Settlement Officer's order dated 27-3-1980 was legally sustainable in view of the nature of the evidence relied upon (including an allegedly forged patta) and the sufficiency of the officer's reasons.
  5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the alleged reliance on forged documents and the procedural history.
  6. In the separate appeal (C.M.S.A No. 83 of 1986), whether the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge, which excluded the lands from the reserve forest based on the Assistant Settlement Officer's patta order, should survive after the Commissioner of Land Administration set that patta order aside.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner claimed entitlement to the properties (asserting a compromise between him and Ranganayaki Ammal) and sought to challenge the Board's order setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order granted in favour of his sister.
  • It was contended that the only authority competent to hear a revision against the Assistant Settlement Officer's order was the Director of Survey and Settlement, which had entertained and allowed the revision; therefore the Board could not set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order on grounds of earlier finality.
  • It was contended that the Board had no jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional powers under S.7(c) and S.7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act and could do so only if an application for revision was filed.
  • It was argued that the Assistant Settlement Officer's order (27-3-1980) was based on documentary evidence and contained a discussion that should not have been interfered with by the Board in a suo motu revision.
  • It was contended that the Board of Revenue did not give the petitioner an opportunity before setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order.

Respondent / Board of Revenue / State (as reflected in the opinion)

  • The Board of Revenue, upon hearing counsel and perusing records, concluded that earlier proceedings (1964 Order and 1978 Board order rejecting claims) precluded fresh grant of patta; it held that the Director's remand and the consequent Assistant Settlement Officer's order were ab initio void and therefore set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order and directed re-registration as forest poromboke.
  • In the appeal context, the District Forest Officer (appellant in C.M.S.A) relied on the Assistant Settlement Officer's 27-3-1980 order (granting patta under S.11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act) and on that basis the Forest Settlement Officer and subsequently the District Judge had excluded the lands from the notified reserve forest; the appellant sought to maintain those exclusion orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in distinct strands corresponding to the contentions raised:

  1. Locus standi: The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition to set aside an order originally made in favour of Ranganayaki Ammal because the Assistant Settlement Officer's primary order was in her favour and the petitioner himself had previously challenged that order by filing a revision. The claimed later compromise between the petitioner and his sister did not confer on him the right to maintain the present writ petition challenging the Assistant Settlement Officer's order.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Director of Survey and Settlement: The court examined the statutory scheme (referring to S.5(2) and S.11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act and relevant Rules framed under the Act) and concluded that once the Assistant Settlement Officer's 1964 order rejecting the parents' claim had become final and the claim by the petitioner and others had been rejected in 1978, the Director of Survey and Settlement had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision some 15 years after the 1964 order and to remand the matter for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the Board's view that the Director's order and the Assistant Settlement Officer's consequential order were ab initio void was held to be correct and in accordance with law.
  3. Suo motu revisional powers of the Board under S.7(c) and S.7(d): The court rejected the contention that the Board could exercise such powers only if a specific application for revision was filed. The court read S.7(c) and S.7(d) as conferring power on the Board to cancel or set aside orders passed by lower authorities and held that it was open to the Board to exercise those powers suo motu whenever necessary.
  4. Sufficiency of the Assistant Settlement Officer's reasoning and the nature of evidence: The court examined the Assistant Settlement Officer's order and found it lacking in discussion of evidence. Apart from listing exhibits and witnesses, the Assistant Settlement Officer did not meaningfully discuss evidence and made assertions (for example, that the age of standing crops supported a ryotwari finding and that the ex-landholder had recognized rights by assignment in 1944) for which the documentary record did not provide support. The patta relied upon by the Assistant Settlement Officer was earlier found to be forged as early as 1961 according to the Board's findings. By relying on that document as an assignment, the Assistant Settlement Officer's order (dated 27-3-1980) was found unsustainable in law.
  5. Reliance on forged document and equitable discretion under Article 226: The court declined to exercise discretionary relief under Article 226 in favour of a person who rested his claim on a forged document and who had, in the court's view, played a fraud in the proceedings. The court rejected the attempt to distinguish between the claims of the petitioner's parents and the petitioner himself since the Assistant Settlement Officer had relied on the alleged assignment/patta central to the earlier findings of forgery.
  6. Procedural fairness / opportunity to be heard: The court rejected the contention that no opportunity was given by the Board before it set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order, noting that counsel for the petitioner had been heard by the Board (as recorded in the opinion). The court held there was no necessity for a separate notice to the petitioner before the Board set aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order and reiterated that, on merits, the petitioner was not entitled to relief because his claim rested on a bogus document.
  7. Consequences for the appeal (C.M.S.A No. 83 of 1986): Because the Assistant Settlement Officer's patta order was set aside by the Commissioner of Land Administration and the writ petition challenging that setting aside was dismissed, the Assistant Settlement Officer's order did not survive. Therefore, the Forest Settlement Officer's order excluding the lands from the notified reserve forest (which had relied on that Assistant Settlement Officer order) and the District Judge's confirmation had to be set aside. The court allowed the C.M.S.A and set aside those orders.

Holding and Implications

Holding (W.P. No. 2739 of 1986): The writ petition is DISMISSED. The court found no merit in the petition and held that the Assistant Settlement Officer's order of 27-3-1980 was unsustainable and that the Board of Revenue was correct to set it aside as ab initio void.

Holding (C.M.S.A No. 83 of 1986): The appeal by the District Forest Officer is ALLOWED. Consequently, the orders passed in Claim No. 1411.BNHFB by the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge (which had excluded the lands from the notified reserve forest relying on the Assistant Settlement Officer's patta order) are set aside.

Implications:

  • The immediate effect is that the Commissioner of Land Administration's order setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's patta order stands, and the lands are to be re-registered as forest poromboke in the revenue and settlement accounts as directed by the Board.
  • Because the Assistant Settlement Officer's order has been held unsustainable (including because it relied on an allegedly forged patta), the subsequent exclusion of the lands from the notified reserve forest based on that order was reversed.
  • The court declined to exercise discretionary relief under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner due to the petitioner's reliance on the forged document; the opinion does not purport to lay down any new legal precedent beyond application of the statutory provisions and the facts of this case.

No new precedent was declared by the court in this opinion beyond the court's application of the statutory scheme and the facts.

Case authored by Srinivasan, J. (as reflected in the provided opinion). No external authorities or precedents were cited within the text supplied.

Show full summary ...

    M. Veeraswamy v. Special Commissioner And Commissioner Of Land Administration, Madras-5. 2. The Director Of Settlement. 3. The Assistant Settlement Officer Narimedu, Madurai.

    Srinivasan, J.

    W.P No. 2739 of 1986:—

    This Writ petition is filed by Veeraswamy for issue of a certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of the Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras in CLA.D Dis(K) R.P 51/80 dated 14-2-1986 and to quash the same. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are shortly as follows:—

    2. The lands in dispute viz., S. Nos. 1094/1 and 1094/4 of an extent of 1.29 acres and 33.89 acres respectively were taken over under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 5-3-1954. They were registered as forest lands. Notification under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act was issued, followed by proclamation under Sec. 6.

    3. The parents of the petitioner herein filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai for issue of patta under S. 11(a) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that their claim was based on a bogus patta, said to have been issued by the landholder for fasli 1353, and rejected the same by order dated 9-1-1964. That order was not challenged and it became final. Long afterwards, the petitioner herein and some others applied for patta outside the scope of the Act. Under G.O.Ms No. 1312 (Rev.) dated 26-7-1967, the Board of Revenue rejected the claim. However, the Board directed the petitioner to file a revision, if so advised, to set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, issued in 1964. A. revision was presented to the Board and it was rejected as it was belated. That was by order dated 30-6-1978.

    4. Thereafter, one Ranganayaki Ammal, said to be the sister of the petitioner herein, filed a revision before the Director of Survey and Settlement, under S. 5(2) of the Act against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 9-1-1964. The Director of Survey and Settlement, ignoring the prior proceedings, set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, with some observations. On remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order on 21-3-1980, granting patta in favour of the said Ranganayaki Ammal holding that lands were ryotwari lands. That order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Settlement Officer. The petitioner obtained an order of stay pending the disposal of the said proceedings. The order of stay was challenged by the said Ranganayaki Ammal before the Director of Survey and Settlement, who granted interim stay. That order was challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue in RP. No. 51/80 dated 5-5-1980. When the revision came up before the Board for hearing on 13-9-1985, the counsel who appeared for the petitioner therein, represented to the Board that the matter had been settled between the petitioner and the respondent therein and he was willing to have the Revision withdrawn and that it could be dismissed. But the Board heard the arguments of the Advocate and perused the records. On merits, the Board found that in view of the earlier proceedings in 1964 and the order of the Board in 1978, rejecting the claim of the petitioner's parents as well as that of the petitioner, the order passed by the Director of Settlement, remanding for fresh disposal and the consequential order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, granting patta in favour of the petitioner's sister, were all ab initio void. Consequently, the Board held that the lands having been registered already as forest lands, the claim for patta having been refused earlier within the provisions of the Act and outside the scope of the Act, there was no case for granting the prayer of the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer in the proceedings. Therefore, the Board set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and directed the lands to be registered again as forest poromboke in all the revenue and settlement accounts. It is the said order of the Board, which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.

    5. At the outset, it must be mentioned that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition as the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the first instance was only in favour of Ranganayaki Ammal and the petitioner had himself challenged the same before the Settlement Officer by filing a revision. It is now stated that there was a compromise between the petitioner and his sister Ranganayaki Ammal, by virtue of which, the petitioner had become entitled to the properties. Even if it is so, it will not give any right to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition, which is one setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer made in favour of the said Ranganayaki Ammal, relying upon the compromise said to have been entered long afterwards between the petitioner and his sister.

    6. It is contended before us that the only authority to whom a Revision could be filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was Director of Survey and Settlement and that such a revision was filed by the petitioner's sister in 1979 and the same was accepted by the said authority. It is argued, that the statutory authority having entertained the revision and allowed the same and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, it is not open to the Board to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the ground of finality obtained earlier in the proceedings. There is no substance in this contention. In this connection, our attention is drawn not only to the provisions under S. 5(2) and S. 11(a) of the Act, but also the relevant Rules framed under the Act. Once it is found that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, rejecting the claim of the parents of the petitioner had become final and the claim by the petitioner and others for issue of patta outside the scope of the Act had also been rejected in 1978 itself, the Director of Survey and Settlement had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain a Revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, virtually 15 years after the order was passed and remand the matter for fresh disposal. The view taken by the Board that the order passed by the Director of Settlement and the consequential order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer were ab initio void is perfectly correct and in accordance with law.

    7. It is next contended that the Board has no jurisdiction to suo motu exercise its revisional powers under S. 7(c) and S. 7(d) of the Act. The argument proceeds that the Board could exercise such powers only if there is an application before it for revising the order of lower authority. There is no substance in this contention also. The Section does not contemplate any specific application being filed under S. 7(c) and 7(d) of the Act. The Section confers powers on the Board to cancel or set aside any orders passed by the lower authority and certainly it is open to the Board to exercise the said power suo motu whenever it is found necessary.

    8. It is next contend that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed on 21-3-1980 is based on documentary evidence and he has discussed the same and it should not have been interfered with by the Board in a suo motu Revision. There is no merit in this contention also. We have gone through the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. We do not find any discussion worthy of mentioning. Except setting out the list of exhibits and the list of witnesses, the Assistant Settlement Officer has not discussed any part of the evidence. It is not known, how he is able to say in para 8 of the order that the age of the standing crops supports his conclusion that the petitioner before him was enjoying the land as ryotwari land. In the same paragraph, he has referred to the recognition by the ex-landholder of the rights of the petitioner by way of assignment in 1944. We found from the list of exhibits appended to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer that no patta or assignment deed had been filed before him. On the other hand, the Board referred to the circumstance that the patta on which reliance was placed by the petitioner's parents was found to be forged even as early as in 1961. Overlooking the said circumstances the Assistant Settlement Officer has, in his order dated 27-3-1980, relied upon the very same document and referred to it as assignment. On the face of it, the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 27-3-1980 is unsustainable in law.

    9. In any event, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under Art. 226 of the Constitution in favour of a person, who rested his claim on a forged document, and played a fraud in the proceedings. Now it is contended that it was only the parents of the petitioner who made such a claim and that in the present proceedings the petitioner has not placed any reliance thereon. There is no merit whatever in this contention. As pointed out earlier, the Assistant Settlement Officer has relied upon the alleged assignment in 1944 which was nothing but, the patta referred to in the order of the Board of Revenue.

    10. It is contended that no opportunity was given by the Board of Revenue before it decided to set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 27-3-1980. We do not accept this contention in view of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner were heard by the Board as stated in paragraph 6. There was no necessity for any separate notice to the petitioner before the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was set aside. In any event, as pointed out by us, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as his claim is based upon a bogus document.

    11. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit whatever in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

    C.M.S.A No. 83 of 1986:—

    1. This appeal is by the District Forest Officer, Maduri North. Theni against the orders passed by the District Judge, Madurai in C.M No. 90 of 1980 which in turn is against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, Bodinaickanur in claim No. 1411.BNHFB dated 7-9-1983.

    2. The petitioner in the above writ petition filed a claim petition under S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act for excluding the lands in S. Nos. 1094/1 and 1094/4, Alagamalai Village from the notification under S. 6 on the ground that he had obtained ryotwari patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer under the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act, by order dated 27-3-1980. Relying on the said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the Forest Settlement Officer accepted the claim of the respondent herein and directed exclusion of the lands in S. Nos. 1094/1 and 1094/4 Agamalai Village of an extent of 1.29 acres and 33.89 acres respectively form the notified area reserve forest. On appeal, the District Judge, Madurai has confirmed the said order in view of the fact that the Assistant Settlement Officer has granted patta under S. 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act.

    3. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 27-3-1980 was set aside by the Commissioner of Land Administration by order dated 14-2-1986 in CL.A.D Dis (K) R.P 51/1980. That order was challenged in the above W.P No. 2739 of 1986 by the respondent herein. We have dismissed the writ petition, as stated above. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration stands. Consequently, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer does not survive. Hence the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge have to be set aside. The C.M.S.A is allowed. The orders passed in Claim No. 1411.BNHFB by the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge are set aside. No costs.

    KA/CH/VCS

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    M. Veeraswamy v. Special Commissioner...
    (Apr 26, 1996)