The writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent dated 26 April 2005 by which the respondent as per the direction by this Court dated 01 December 2004 issued in W.P.No.35023 of 2004 has rejected the representation of the deceased first petitioner dated 24 February 1970.
2. A writ petition was filed by the first petitioner Balarama Thevar in W.P.No.35023 of 2004 for a direction to issue Ryotwari patta in respect of Old Survey No.11/1 New Survey No.11/A measuring 3 acres 46 cents, Survey No.11/5 measuring 0.24 cents Survey No.11/6 measuring 0.26 cents, S.No.11/8 measuring 0.12 cents, 11/9 measuring 0.45 cents on par with the order of the District Collector dated 06.07.1994 by which it is stated that patta has been granted in favour of one Mummoorthy, Kaspapuram village relating to Survey No.11/1 by changing the classification as 'Anadheenam dry'.
3. The petitioners who claimed right over the lands comprised in S.Nos.11/1 and 11/9 through the grandfather Natesa Thevar had made a representation dated 24.02.1970 for the purpose of issuance of patta regarding the above said lands. It is seen that the Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 31.01.1969 has declared the lands as 'Anadheenam dry'. The provisions regarding the ryotwari patta and determination of land which are comprised in Sections 11 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 which are as follows:-
"Grant of ryotwari patta on the basis of personal cultivation in certain cases:
11.(1) Where no person is entitled to a ryotwari in respect of a land in an inam estate, under section 9 or 10 and the land vests in the Government, the persons specified, below shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land in the following order of preference:-
(i)firstly, a person who had been personally cultivating such land for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st of April, 1960;
(ii) secondly, if there is no such person as is referred to in clause (i), then, a person who had been lawfully admitted into possession of such land on or after the 27th day of September, 1955 and who had been personally cultivating such land every since; and
(iii) thirdly, if there is no such person as is referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) then, a person who had been personally cultivating that land on the 26th day of September, 1955 and for a period of twelve years immediately before that date:
Provided that no person shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of any land under clause (i) or (iii) of this sub-section if such person has voluntarily abandoned or relinquished his rights in respect of such land on or before the date of the decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section(1) of section 12.
Provided further that no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any land falling under any of the categories specified below:-
a) forests;
b) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels;
c) threshing floor, cattle-stands, villages-sites, cart tracks, roads, temple sites and such other lands as are set apart for the common use of the villagers;
d) rivers, streams and other porambokes Determination of land in which any person is entitled to ryotwari patta:
12.1)The Settlement Officer shall examine the claim of any person for a ryotwari patta under Section 9 or Section 10 or Section 11, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed.
(2) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Government may, within one year from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within three months from the said date, appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding six months for the filing of any such appeal:
Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discertain, entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact."
On an enquiry conducted, on the basis of the personal cultivation, it appears that the petitioner's grandfather has been granted patta under section 11 of the Act to the extent of 10.00.0 hectares. However, the claim of Natesa Thevar in respect of the present property in dispute comprised in Survey No.11/1 and 11/9 came to be rejected and classified as 'Anadheenam dry'. It is not in dispute that as against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, the said Natesa Thevar or the petitioners herein who are the legal representatives have not filed any appeal only within the time stipulated under the Act. As per the Act, against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, an appeal would lie only within the time limit prescribed as per the Act and when the Tribunal extended the time limit by another six months . Admittedly the classification has been made on 31.01.1969 by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the claim of the Natesa Thevar was rejected at that time. The said Natesa thevar as per law should have filed appeal within the time stipulated thereunder. When such appeal was not filed certainly the said Natesa Thevar has no right to claim or to challenge the said order of 1969 of the Assistant Settlement Officer.
4. Now at this point of time, it appears to be the fact that the Natesa Thevar instead of filing the statutory appeal as provided under the Act has chosen to give a representation on 24.02.1970 requesting for issuance of patta in respect of S.No.11/1 and 11/9 stating that he has been in possession of the property. Since no order was passed, the first petitioner has moved this Court filing the above writ petition in which the learned Government Pleader has taken objections that such application has not been made within the time stipulated for issuance of patta. However a direction was given by this court in W.P.No.35023 of 2004 dated 01.12.2004 directing the District Collector, the respondents therein who are the Settlement Commissioner and others to consider the representation which is as follows:-
"3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the petitioners have not made the application on or before 1.10.1987, they are not entitled for the grant of ryotwari patta. In view of the above submission, I am of the considered view that the matter requires a decision on the factual aspect, the respondents should be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners on merits. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.42249 of 2004 is closed."
It is only based on the said direction, the writ petitioner make claim. Even assuming that after the direction was given by this court while the respondent passed the impugned order no personal hearing was given to the petitioners, which was of course not contemplated by the order of this Court. The question remains as to whether the petitioners or their grandfather have filed appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer within the time prescribed as stated above. Unless the case of the petitioner is that the said Natesa Thevar or the first petitioner have filed the appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in the manner known to law, there is absolutely no other possible right on the part of the petitioner to claim under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 or Rules made thereunder.
5. In fact in the impugned order, the respondents have found that the petitioners have not produced any documents to prove that they have agitated the matter before the appropriate forum viz., Inam Abolition Tribunal or filed appeal under purview of the act before the time limit i.e., 31.03.1977. In addition to that, the respondents have taken note of the photo copies of the documents filed by the petitioner and even though holding that such copies are not admissible evidences, the respondents have gone into the fact that those are not relating to survey numbers for which case has been filed. It was the substantial issue and on the legal basis, the respondent passed the order which in my considered view requires no interference. It has to be reiterated unless until the petitioner makes the case under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 taking steps by filing appeal under the Act as well as rules within the time limit prescribed, the petitioners have absolutely no right to make such claim.
6. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
vri To
1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.Tamil Nadu Police Department Office, Assistant's Association, Rep. By its President, A.Paulraj, D.G.P.Office, Mylapore, Chennai 4