2023:MHC:3917
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.15591 and 15592 of 2017 and 17017 to 17020 of 2018
W.P.No.14379 of 2017
K.Ilanchezian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3.Chinnasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
order passed in Proceedings Order Aa 8/3939/2017 dated 29.05.2017 on the
file of the 1st respondent insofar as it relates to directing the 2nd respondent
to cancel the transfer of patta and effect changes in the revenue records and
to quash the same.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Sunda Ram,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan
W.P.No.14414 of 2017
K.Ilanchezian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4.R.Velmurugan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order passed in the 1st respondent herein proceedings in
Se.Mu.Aa.Aa.8/23557/2017 dated 12.05.0218 as well as consequential
order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings in Na.Ka.A4/2531/2018
dated 17.05.2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to restore the name of the petitioner's father.
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.E.Sunda Ram,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan
W.P.No.14415 of 2017
K.Ilanchezian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4.T.Elumalai ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order passed in the 1st respondent herein proceedings in
Se.Mu.Aa.Aa.8/23557/2017 dated 16.05.0218 as well as consequential
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings in Na.Ka.A4/2531/2018
dated 17.05.2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to restore the name of the petitioner's father.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.E.Sunda Ram,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan
ORDER
The order of the District Collector passed in the proceedings dated
29.05.2017 cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the Tribal
Community person is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner states that the land comprised in S.No.74/3,
Thorangur Village, Chinnasalem, Villupuram measuring to an extent of
1.54.50 acres belonged to one Chinnasamy / the 3rd respondent, who was
granted patta by the Settlement Officer. The 3rd respondent had sold the
subject property to the father of the writ petitioner / Mr.T.S.Krishnamoorthy
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
by way of a Sale Deed dated 10.01.1986 vide document No. 39 of 1986 on
the file of the District Registrar, Kallakurichi. The petitioner states that he is
in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.
3. An enquiry notice was issued by the District Collector pursuant to
the order issued by the High Court in W.P.No.38613 of 2016, directing the
District Collector to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders.
4. The District Collector had conducted an enquiry and made a
finding that the subject property was assigned in favour of the Tribal people
that it was in violation of the assignment conditions and in violation of the
revenue standing orders, as it was alienated in favour of the father of the
writ petitioner, who is not a Tribe and accordingly, the District Collector
passed the impugned order cancelling the patta issued in the name of the
3rd respondent.
5. RSO 15(40) speaks about the Hill Tribes as follows:-
“ (40) Hill Tribes:- Conditional assignment:- In the
following cases, the assignment of land to Malayalis or
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
Sholaga, as the case may be, shall be subject to the
conditions that the land shall not be transferred by the
assignees to any person outside the class to which they
belong without the express sanction of the sanction of the
Divisional Officer, and that, if the land is transferred
without such sanction or is attached and sold by any legal
process, it shall be liable to resumption by the Divisional
Officer without payment of any compensation whatever:-
G.O.1197, dt 25-5-20 G.O.Ms.507, Rev, dt 23.3.30
B.P.57, dt.7-7-20 B.P.Mis.29, dt.3-4-30
G.O.Mis.3316, Rev. dt.5-9-58
6. With reference to the revenue standing orders, the Government
order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 561, Revenue Department dated 14.03.1979 is
to be considered. The said Governmental order was passed regarding the
assignment of land to the Hill Tribes and Prohibition of alienation of
assigned lands by the Tribals to the Non-Tribals. The Thorangur Village is
falling under the Annexure Clause – III, S.No.29 in the Government Order.
Therefore, the subject property has been assigned in favour of the Tribal
Person / father of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, who in turn in
violation of the assignment conditions, sold the subject property to the
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
father of the writ petitioner, who is a non-tribal person. The alienation was
made in violation of the revenue standing orders and in violation of the
Government order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 561, Revenue Department dated
14.03.1979.
7. In view of the said factum, the District Collector, after conducting
an enquiry, concluded that the 3rd respondent violated the assignment
conditions and consequently, cancelled the patta granted in favour of the
writ petitioner.
8. The counter filed by the Tahsildar, Chinnasalem also reveals that
one Thiru.Chinnasamy, Kalrayan Hills, Villupuram District filed a Writ
Petition in W.P.38613 of 2016 and this Court passed an order to dispose of
his representation dated 19.08.2016 in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 561,
Revenue Department dated 14.03.1979.
9. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the District
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
Collector issued notice and conducted an enquiry. During the enquiry, the
District Collector found that the 3rd respondent had violated the assignment
conditions and alienated the subject property in favour of the father of the
writ petitioner and accordingly, cancelled the patta granted in favour of the
writ petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Assistant
Settlement Officer issued patta in favour of the 3rd respondent and therefore,
the said patta is to be construed as Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act. However, there is no such indication
in the patta and moreover, the District Collector has categorically stated that
the subject property was assigned in favour of the 3rd respondent and such
lands were allotted for Hill Tribes and therefore, the Ryotwari Patta was not
granted under the provisions of the Act, as claimed by the petitioners. More
so, the writ petitioner is a non-tribal person and not entitled to hold the
subject property, which is exclusively allotted for Hill Tribes.
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
11. Since the 3rd respondent violated the assignment conditions, the
assignment is liable to be cancelled.
12. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent made a submission that
some illegalities are going on in that locality and the tribal persons, who all
are enjoying the Government assigned land is leasing out / alienating the
property for the purpose of excavating stones.
13. This being the factum, the District Collector is directed to conduct
a field inspection and if there is any illegal mining, illegal excavation of
stones or otherwise, all such activities are to be prevented and appropriate
actions are to be initiated against all the persons, who have involved in such
illegal activities in the entire hill area.
14. At the outset, any violations or illegalities in the hill areas are to
be dealt in accordance with law and the offenders are to be prosecuted in the
manner contemplated.
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
15. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the 3rd respondent,
who was an assignee of hill area under the Hill Tribes category had violated
the conditions imposed by the Government and therefore, the alienation of
the subject land in favour of the father of the petitioner itself was untenable
and thus, the cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner cannot
be construed as infirm.
16. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct a field
inspection and initiate all appropriate actions to resume the Government
lands and deal with the same in the manner contemplated under the law.
17. The learned Government Advocate has brought to the notice of
this Court that on account of bifurcation of Villupuram District, now the
matter is to be dealt with by the District Collector, Kallakurichi. The
Registry, High Court is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the
District Collector, Kallakurichi for initiating all appropriate action.
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
19. Post the matter under the caption, “For Reporting Compliance” on
01.09.2023.
11.08.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.Nos.14379, 14414, 14415 of 2017
11.08.2023
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
