The writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent contained in proceedings dated 22.07.2005 made in proceedings No.Rc.K1/1955/2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to rectify the variation made in the Revenue records as per law.
2.The petitioner made a representation dated 22.6.04 claiming patta for a land for an extent of 1 Acre and 13 cents comprised in S.No.8, Ulaganeri Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District classified as Government Poramboke "Oorani" stating that her father-in-law was granted patta for the lands under Final Resettlement Enquiry conducted under Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/48. The same was rejected by an endorsement dated 2.07.2004 as "time barred". As against that order, petitioner moved this Court. This Court by order dated 22.12.2004 in W.P.No.22605/04 remitted the matter to the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration with a direction to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity. Since the first respondent did not dispose the matter, petitioner once again moved this Court in W.P.No.2642 of 2005 to direct the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration to dispose the Claim Petition/representation dated 22.06.2004 expeditiously in terms of the directions of this Court dated 22.12.2004 made in earlier W.P.No.22605 of 2004. This Court by order dated 28.01.2005 in W.P.No.2642 of 2005 directed the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, to dispose the claim petition/representation dated 22.06.2004 as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent based on the direction of this Court and submitted his representation along with photocopies of Settlement Adangal, SLR and legal heirship certifiactes, etc. The first respondent also sent for the original records from the District Revenue Officer and after perusing the settlements records, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's request for grant of patta. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.
3.This writ petition was admitted on 11.08.2005 and respondents were served and the records were called for. At the instance of the petitioner, the writ petition was directed to be posted for final hearing during the second week of January, 2009. As on 07.12.2009, the records were not produced. Hence, this Court by order dated 07.12.2009 directed a responsible officer of the respondents to be present before the Court along with relevant records on 18.12.2009. The Assistant commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and Superintendent of the office of the first respondent are present with records today and the same were perused by this Court.
4.The plea of the petitioner is that she is entitled to patta is based on an extract of the Survey Land Register (SLR) issued on 20.02.2004. In the extract of the Survey Land Register, the extent of the land owned by her predecessor has been shown as 1 acre and 13 cents and the name of the person who is entitled to hold the property is shown as Vadagasi Servai. There is also another column in the said SLR, where it is stated as Vadagasi Servai, son of Subramaniam Servai. The petitioner's father-in-law Vadagasi Servai, it is stated, was holding a patta issued in the year 1920 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property from then. After his demise, petitioner's husband, late V.Ayothi, was in possession till his death on 15.09.2000. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that though the patta is issued in the name of Vadakasi Servai the revenue records were changed and reclassified as "Oorani-Government Poramboke" in the revenue records. The petitioner further claims that the petitioner's family held 5 acres of land in S.No.28/1, 2, 4, 10, and 12 which were acquired by the State Government for the construction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. According to the petitioner, the land in S.No.8 is an agricultural land and in possession of the petitioner and their family. The prayer in the writ petition is to delete the word "Oorani" in the revenue records and enter the name of the petitioner, as legal heir of Vadagasi Servai, the original patta holder.
5.The first respondent after verifying the original Settlement records and considering the claim made by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the Ulaganeri Village of Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District was taken over by the Government under the provision of the Tamil Naud Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/48 on 01.10.51. During the resettlement, the disputed land was registered as "Oorani-Government Pormaboke". The petitioner claim is based on the certified copy of the Survey Land Register issued by the Madurai Collectorate and some photocopy of the land revenue receipts for the years 1942 and 1949. The certified copy of the Survey Land Register when compared with the original Survey Land Register, it is found that in the original Survey land Register the word "Oorani" has been rounded off in red ink and the name "Vadagasi Servai" has been written. As to how the said endorsement has been made and who made the said endorsement is not found in the original record and it is also not authenticated. He further held that the authorities without verifying the original entries in the Survey Land Register which shows the entry as "Oorani" issued the certified copy showing the name Vadagasi Servai which is an unauthorized entry. It is based on this unauthorized entry which is reflected in the certified copy of the Survey Land Register, this Court set aside the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration's endorsement dated 2.7.2004 and remitted the case to him for reconsideration. The first respondent further held that as per the Settlement "A" Register, the land in S.No.8 in an extent of 1 acre 13 cent was shown as "Oorani-Government Poramboke". One other factor which is noted by the first respondent, the Special Commissioner of Land Administration is that the Survey Land Register and Settlement "A" Register contained the details of patta issued in favour of Vadagasi Servai in an extent of 7.75 of acres in the same village. The land in question comprised in Survey No.8 in an extent of 1.13 acres did not contain his name. At the relevant time, the said Vadakasi Servai are any other legal heir could have filed appropriate petition to delete the entry "Oorani" in respect of S.No.8, if they had a claim over the said land. The first respondent, further, held that except the certified copy of the Survey Land Register no other document has been shown by the petitioner claiming right in the land. Petitioner relies upon photocopies of revenue receipts for the years 1942-1949, which were found to be vague and without any survey number and extent. In the absence of any substantial or authentic evidence, the first respondent Special Commissioner rejected petitioner's claims. In the Inspection Report, the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk has stated that there is no encroachment in the suit land and its depth is 10 feet below the adjacent fields. He held that the lands have the capacity of storing rain water and continue to serve as a main water harvesting source. Consequently, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner in his order dated 22.07.2005 in RC.K1/1955/2005. Challenging the order of the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
6.The point in raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the certified copy of the Survey Land Register shows the name of Vadagasi Servai and this is a duly authenticated document and the correction of the entry has not been made properly in the original Settlement "A" Register. The petitioner is entitled to issuance of patta based on this document.
7.The original Settlement "A" Register was produced before the Court. The entry as claimed by the petitioner is not reflected in the said Settlement "A" Register. According to the Department, as held by the first respondent Special Commissioner, the land in question continues to be a "Oorani" and no patta can be granted to anybody in view of the specific Bar under Section 14-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/48, which reads as follows:
"14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of Private tank or oorani:-
(1) xxx (2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act."
8.The petitioner has to establish that the land in question is not an "Oorani", and it is an agricultural land, therefore the petitioner is entitled to grant of patta. This assumes importance in view of the settlement "A" Register record where the land is shown as "Oorani". In this case, the petitioner states that a certified copy of Survey Land Register extract states that it is issued in terms of Section 19 A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/48, which reads as follows:
"19-A. Persons admitted into possession of non-ryoti land how dealt with.- (1) Except where the Government otherwise direct, no person admitted by a landholder into possession of any communal land or forest or other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be entitled to any rights in, or to remain in possession of, such land:
Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to lands for which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta under section 12, 13 or 14.
(2) A direction under sub-section (1) allowing any person to remain in possession of any such land may specify-
(i) the assessment or ground-rent payable to the Government on the land for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the estate is notified, and
(ii) such special terms and conditions including the period for which such person may remain in possession of the land as the Government may consider necessary in the public interest.
Explanation.- In this section, 'communal land' means any land of the description mentioned in
section 3, clause (16), sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of the Estates Land Act."
The petitioner has to first establish that she is entitled to the benefit of a right under Section 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948. There is no government order in favour of the petitioner or her predecessor. In any event, the petitioner's plea for patta does not flow from this provision.
9.It is for the petitioner to establish that the property in question came to be in possession of the petitioner as provided under Section 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948 and that is a matter for adjudication based on records, if any available.
10.In view of the disputed question of fact with regard to petitioner's claim for patta and the provision of Section 19-A of the Act, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. Further, there are discrepancies in the records which goes to the root of the petitioner's claim. This Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order on such disputed facts or order the rectification of the revenue records. This Court finds no gross irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.
11.The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the classification of the land in appropriate proceedings in view of the discrepancy between the Original Survey Land Register and the certified copy said to have been issued to the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Apex court in AIR 1986 SCC 794. In so far as the proceedings relating to the grant of patta is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vsm To
1.The Special commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5
2.The District Revenue Officer Madurai.
3.The Block Development Officer, Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District