Judge, at any stretch of imagination cannot be complied with. 27.For all the reasons stated above, both the Writ Appeals are allowed and the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 and 02.11.2012 are set aside. However, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (T.R, J.) (K.B.,J.) 01.09.2022 Index: Yes Speaking gba   T.RAJA, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.07.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.A.Nos.809 & 1059 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.11320 and 14855 of 2017
1.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)
Office of the Principal Secretary &
Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. … Appellant in W.A.No.1059 of 2017
2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram District,
Now at
Tahsildar,
Thiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. … Appellant in both the Writ Appeals
vs
M/s.Mayajal Entertainment (P) Ltd.,
Represented by M.D.Udeep Bogollu,
No.34/1, East Coase Road,
Kanathur Reddy Kuppam,
Chennai – 603 112. … Respondent in both the Writ Appeals Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the orders made in W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 & 02.11.2012 respectively.
For Appellant in both the W.As. : Mr.V.Arun
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent in both the W.As. : Mr.K.Sridhar
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by both T.Raja, J. and K.Kumaresh Babu, J.)
These Writ Appeals are directed against the orders made in
W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 &
02.11.2012 respectively.
2.The brief facts of the case is that Kanathur Reddikuppam Village was taken over under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred as Act, 1948) by a Notification dated 07.03.1957 vide G.O.Ms.No.630 Revenue, dated 09.02.1957.
3.Settlement proceedings were initiated in the year 1959. The issue in the present Writ Petition is in respect of land in S.No.34/2 Reddikuppam Village. The total extent of land in S.No.34 was 5.85 Acres, has been sub-divided into two bearing S.No.34/1 measuring to an extent of 3.85 Acres and S.No.34/2, measuring to an extent of 2 Acres. On 05.05.2003, the respondent herein had made an application to the District Collector, Chengalpet District, seeking for grant of lease for a period of 30 years. Along with the said application he had also submitted all relevant documents including a signed Form-I stipulated for a request to lease of Government Poramboke lands. The Tahsildar, Chengalpet District, had also conducted an enquiry and forwarded a proposal for leasing the said lands for a period of 20 years by fixing the annual rent at Rs.22,41,596/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Six Only) per annum to the District Collector, Chengalpet. The said proposal was returned by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration as it was defective. On 13.07.2009, the Tahsildar forwarded the revised lease proposal by fixing the annual rent at Rs.22,76,918/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen Only) to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet. On 26.07.2011, the respondent herein had made representation to the 1st appellant herein for grant of Patta in respect of land in S.No.34/2, Kanathur Reddikuppam Village, alleging that he had purchased the property in the year 1999 and that they are in possession of the said land for over 12 years. Originally, the said request was rejected by the 1st appellant on the ground that he had no Authority to consider the request in view of the G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 29.06.1987. The same was challenged by the respondent. This Court by order dated 21.09.2011 taking into consideration that no notice was given to the 1st respondent herein before rejecting its request the order of the 1st appellant was set aside with a direction to consider the application afresh after giving an opportunity and taking note of the relevant rules and notifications including that of delay and pass fresh orders within a period of two weeks.
4.The first appellant vide order dated 02.11.2011 passed orders granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of the respondent. He had considered the issue of the delay in filing the application. The respondent thereafter by letter dated 07.06.2002 addressed to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, stating that he is not interested in the lease as requested by him. Thereafter, the respondent filed W.P.No.29465 of 2012, seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar, Chengelpet, to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk accounts based on his representation dated 06.04.2012, in pursuance to the order dated 02.11.2011. This Court by the impugned order dated 02.11.2012 directed the implementation of the order, as there was no appeal filed against the same. This order is impugned in W.A.No.1059 of 2017.
5.The second appellant vide his order dated 08.03.2013, referring to the order of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner Land Administration, had directed the respondent to approach the District Collector concerned or the Principal Secretary and Commissioner Land Administration by way of filing an appeal as there was a specific direction not to implement the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer/ Settlement Officer/ Director of Survey and Settlement, without getting instructions from the Principal Secretary and Commissioner Land Administration. However, the second appellant herein by his order dated 23.08.2013, on the strength of opinion given by the learned Additional Advocate General dated 31.12.2012 in compliance with the order of this Court, issued Patta. The respondent herein by his letter dated 15.07.2015 sought the 2nd appellant herein to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk Accounts. As the said representation was not considered, the respondent had moved this Court by way of Writ in W.P.No.25594 of 2015, seeking for a direction to the Thasildar, Chengalpet to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk Accounts. This Court vide its order dated 10.09.2015 had issued a direction to the respondent herein to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk Accounts, based on the representation dated 15.07.2015 and the earlier proceedings dated 23.08.2013 of 2nd appellant herein. The said order is impugned in W.A.No.809 of 2017.
6.When the entire issue surfaced in charge memo was issued to the individual, who held the office of the second appellant, the Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Land Administration, by his letter dated 08.12.2017 had directed the Director of Survey and Settlement to review the orders passed by the Assistant settlement Officer (North).
7.Pursuant to the same, the Director of Survey and Settlement had issued a notice dated 03.08.2018, calling upon the respondent herein to an enquiry for suo-moto review of the order dated 02.11.2011 of the Assistant Settlement Officer (North). The respondent herein filed W.P.No.26157 of 2018, seeking for a direction to furnish all documents including the grounds of appeal. In suo moto appeal initiated by the Director of Survey and Settlement, he had also prayed for an interim stay of all further proceedings, which has been granted by this Court.
8.Heard Mr.V.Arun, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent.

9.Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that Kanathur Reddikuppam village was taken over under the provisions of the Act, 1948 on 07.03.1957. The settlement proceedings were initiated in the year, 1959. During the settlement proceedings, one Munaiver Khan Shaib and M.Noorudin Shaib were granted Ryotwari Patta under Section 11 of the Act, 1948 for an extent of 3.85 Acres in S.No.34/1. As there was no claim in respect of S.No.34/2, it was classified as “Anadheenam” and vested with the Government. Even the respondent herein by his application dated 05.05.2003 had referred this land in S.No.34/2 as “Anadheenam” land and sought for leasing of the said lands. Based on which the proceedings were initiated for fixing of rent by the Revenue Authorities. However, on 26.07.2011, the respondent made an application to the Office of the 1st appellant claiming that he had purchased the land in S.No.34/2 in the year, 1999 and that it is in uninterrupted possession for over 12 years, hence, sought to grant Patta in its name.

10.Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the respondent, all along from the year, 2003 admitted that the lands are “Anadheenam”, but suddenly, started to make a false claim of title to the property. The 1st appellant by his order dated 03.08.2011, originally rejected the request stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1984 that the application filed by the respondent is beyond time and rejected its request.
11.Being aggrieved, the respondent had filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.20999 of 2011, suppressing various material facts, obtained an order of remand on the ground that he was not heard before passing of such order. The Court further directed that while passing the fresh order, relevant rules and notifications including that of delay has to be taken into consideration. The same officer who was officiating the 1st appellant, had directed the issuance of patta. The said officer had originally rejected the application of the respondent, on the ground of delay, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.714. In spite of the specifications and observations of this Court to also deal with issue of limitation, did not discuss the maintainability of the application in light of the G.O.Ms.No.714.
12.Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondent again filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29465 of 2012, seeking for a direction to the 2nd appellant herein to grant Patta by making necessary changes in the Village and Taluk Records. Pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2011 made by the
1st appellant, again this Court vide its order dated 02.11.2012 had directed the 2nd respondent to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent. Here again, the Officer officiating the Office of 2nd appellant, originally had directed the respondent to approach either the Collector or the Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner Land Administration as there was a direction by the later not to implement the orders, if any, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer/ Settlement Officer/ Director of Survey and Settlement without getting instructions from the said Authority. However, the same Officer by another proceedings dated 23.08.2013 had granted Patta in compliance with the orders passed by this Court and he had relied upon the opinion given by the learned

Additional Advocate General dated 31.12.2012.
13.The respondent again filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.25594 of 2015, seeking for a direction to 2nd respondent herein to carryout the corrections in the Revenue Records which was also granted by this Court in its Order dated 10.09.2015.
14.It is his further case that there has been a collusion between the respondent and the officers who had hold the Office of the 1st and 2nd appellants and when it had come to the knowledge of the Government, they had also issued a charge memo. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that no changes were made to the Revenue Records. Originally, a computer entry was created pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd appellant dated 23.08.2013. But when the charge memo was served upon him, the same has also been removed and now the computer entry is blank.
15.A suo moto Revision was also initiated by the Director of Town and
Country Planning on the instructions of the Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Land Administration. The respondent had sought for a Mandamus to furnish the grounds of appeal in the Suo Motu appeal initiated and had obtained an interim order from proceeding further in W.P.No.26157 of 2018. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the lands comprised in S.No.34/2 were classified as “Anadheenam”, as there was no claim in respect of the said land. The respondent has also not traced any title of his predecessors in respect of the S.No.34/2 prior to the notification issued under the Act, 1948.
16.Learned Additional Advocate General drew our attention that the application filed by the respondent has been made much beyond the period prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.714, which had made amendments to the Rules framed under Act, 1948 and hence, the application itself is not maintainable. That apart, the respondent himself had sought for lease of the land even as early as 2003. But for the reasons best known to him, from the year, 2011, he had claimed patta to be issued in its name as he had purchased the property.
17.Countering the arguments made by the learned Additional Advocate
General, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the
of 20
land in S.No.34/2, prior to the notification under Act, 1948 was in possession and enjoyment of the predecessor in title and the Revenue Records also would clearly establish the same. To substantiate his case, he had relied upon the extract of the register which was maintained prior to the settlement proceedings. He had shown that the S.Nos.34/1 and 34/2 co-relate to Pimash Nos.405 and 406, in which the name of one Munaivar Khan Shaib has been shown as the person being in occupation and a mistake has been committed during the settlement proceedings and only Ryotwari Patta in respect of S.No.34/1 was issued to his predecessor and S.No.34/2 was noted a “Anadheenam” land and the present endeavor is only to correct the mistake made during the settlement proceedings. He had relied upon various documents to show that he had title over the S.No.34/2.
18.It is his further case that the Authorities have passed orders pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and hence, such orders cannot be found fault with. He has also submitted that G.O.Ms.No.714 would only be applicable in cases of appeals and not original application. It is his further case that the order
impugned in W.A.No.1059 of 2017, challenging the order made in

W.P.No.29465 of 2012 dated 02.11.2012 has already been implemented by passing of order by 2nd appellant on 23.08.2013 and that the said Writ Appeal had become infructuous.
19.He further argued that all that remains is to carryout the corrections in the Revenue Records and till such time, the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2013 holds good. The Authorities have to change the Revenue Records. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeals.
20.We have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
21.This is a classic case where the respondent herein and the officers who were officiating the 1st and 2nd respondent had successfully made this Court a fait accompli. Fortunately, some one somewhere in the executive had woken up which had put a brake so that the damage that has been caused could be reversed.
22.It is an admitted case that Kannathur Reddikuppam Village was taken over under the Act, 1948 and settlement proceedings were initiated in the year 1959. It is also an admitted case that during the settlement proceedings,
S.No.34/1 was issued with a Ryotwari Patta in the name of one Munivar Khan Shaib and another. The land in S.No.34/2 was declared as Anadheenam. Till the year 2011, no one had approached the Authorities for grant of Ryotwari Patta. Even the respondent in the year 2003, had only sought for lease of the land in S.No.34/2. A turn around has been made by the respondent seeking for a grant of Patta in his name by representation dated 26.07.2011. There was no reference of any proceedings in the Act, 1948. It had simply stated that it had purchased the property in the year 1999 and has been in possession of the land for over 12 years. Even though, originally the officer holding the office of Assistant Settlement Officer had rejected the application as it is bared by time, in the view
of G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes Religious Endowment Department dated 29.06.1987, however after remand made by this Court in W.P.No.20999 of 2011, had directed granting of patta as per provisions of Section 11(a) of the Act, 1948. It is now pertinent to look at the directions issued by this Court which enabled the said Authority to pass order.
“4.A perusal of the impugned order and the materials on record would show that no notice was given to the petitioner by the first respondent. In view of the above submission and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the order impugned in this Writ Petition was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner, afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to sustain the contention taking note of the relevant rules and notifications including that of delay and pass fresh orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
23.The Authority in clear terms has disregarded the orders passed by this Court. This Court had directed to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity taking note of the relevant rules and notification including that of delay. Even though, originally he had rejected the application on the ground of delay, there is not even an iota of discussion on the maintainability of the said application on the grounds of delay.
24.Again the Officer holding the Office of the 2nd respondent initially, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.29465 of 2012 had directed the respondent to approach the Collector or Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner Land Administration, pursuant to the order of the later that without getting instructions from the said Authority no orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer/ Settlement Officer/ Direction of Survey and Settlement should be implemented. But, however, by a further order dated
23.08.2013 relied upon the opinion issued by the learned Additional Advocate
General, had issued Patta. It is pertinent to note that the opinion of the learned Additional Advocate General is dated 31.12.2012 much prior to the first order passed by the same Authority on 08.03.2013. If such an opinion was already available it is puzzling why the order dated 08.03.2013 was passed directing the respondent to approach the Collector or Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner Land Administration.
25.On 30.08.2013, computer entries were also made in the Patta reflecting the name of the respondent in respect of S.No.34/2. The same has been withdrawn after the charge memo was served on the said Officer. The conduct of the Officers who were holding the posts of the 1st and 2nd appellant creates doubt on their integrity and we are not willing to make any comments on the same as it has been pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them. Besides, it is an Anadheenam land as per the Revenue Records produced before us. Secondly, all along the respondent had been making requests time and again to grant lease of the land in question. Thirdly, when the Revenue Department accepting the request for grant of lease, the Tahsildar had painstakingly, arrived at the lease amount based on the prevailing market rate. When a sum of Rs.22,76,918/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen only) had been fixed as the lease rent, suddenly, taking a somersault that the land in question belongs to the respondent belies his own claim that the land belongs to the respondent, because, till date no suit has been filed for declaration of his title when there is a huge title dispute pending between the parties.
26.In view of the fact that the computer entry regarding the Patta has been removed, it is clear that the order of this Court dated 02.11.2012 has not been fully implemented. Hence, we do not accept the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent that the said Writ Petition had become infructuous. As the Director of Survey and Settlement had already initiated Suo Motu proceedings to review the order passed by the 1st appellant dated 02.11.2011 in his notice dated 03.08.2018, the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.29465 of 2012 and W.P.No.25594 of 2015 need not be complied with, for the reasons that if the order passed by the 1st appellant dated 02.11.2011 is reviewed, then the direction dated 02.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, at any stretch of imagination cannot be complied with.
27.For all the reasons stated above, both the Writ Appeals are allowed and the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.25594 of 2015 and W.P.No.29465 of 2012, dated 10.09.2015 and 02.11.2012 are set aside.
However, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(T.R, J.) (K.B.,J.)
01.09.2022
Index: Yes Speaking gba
 
T.RAJA, J.
AND
K. KUMARESH BABU, J. gba
W.A.Nos.809 & 1059 of 2017
01.09.2022