TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been dismissed. Incidentally, the suit had been decreed by the Trial Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 4. The indispensable facts essential for comprehending the controversy need be gathered at the outset from the pleadings in the suit, in which the present appellants were the defendants along with respondent No. 2. 5. According to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, the suit property bearing Survey Field No. 199/2 ad-measuring Ac. 4.59 cents and located at Village Pillayarpatti, Thanjavur Taluk belonged to his grand-father, Kailasam Sanaiyar and after his demise, he eventually being the only legal heir had been enjoying the same. It is his pleaded case that this land was taken over by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur for the government in the year 1935 vide fasli 1343 Order No. 18431/35 A3 dated 31.12.1935 for non-payment of land tax and was converted into "bought in" land. This land was later converted into "Punjai Tharisu" (Government Dry) fallow land vide order Ni-mu/164/45/A5 dated 1.3.19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. He alleged that no notice of any kind was given to him by the concerned revenue authorities before assigning the suit land in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar in violation of the prescriptions of RSO 45(4). His further remonstrance was that in case, under RSO 45(4), "bought in" land for kist due was not to be restored to the original occupant or his legal heirs, the same was required to be auctioned and that the assignment in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar was arbitrarily made even without following this course as mandated. He also impeached the lease of the suit property in favour of the Sericulture Development Department and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on the cancellation of the assignment of the Sanaiyars as well in contravention of the imperatives of RSO 45(4). The following are the reliefs prayed for in the suit: "1. The Hon'ble Court might be ordered to the defendants that the suit property must be assigned to the plaintiff, if not so, the re-assignment might be executed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. The possession of the suit property should be handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff, if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in his favour. It is indeed apparent from his testimony as well that it was thereafter that he applied to the revenue authorities for assignment of the land in his favour offering to pay of the arrears. Referring to the RSO 45(4), he emphasized that in terms thereof he being the legal heir of the previous owner/occupant was entitled to a preference in the matter of such assignment and that the denial thereof in the facts and circumstances was illegal and arbitrary. He, to be specific, was critical of the omission on the part of the revenue authorities to issue a notice to him before assigning the suit land in favour of the Sanaiyars. 12. As would be evident from the testimony of the witness of the appellants, the suit land, in the year 1935, was "bought in" by the government for non-payment of land tax, whereafter in 1945 it was classified as "Punjai" bare land. The witness deposed that even after taking over of the suit land by the government for non-payment of tax, the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not apply for restoration of the possession by offering the arrears of tax, for which the same was classified as "punjai" bare land" and was thereafter sub-divided and assigned to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../defendants for taking over of the land for non-payment of land tax. According to it, the leasing out of the portions of the suit land to the Sericulture Development Department and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was also unsustainable in law. It noted as well that documentary proof on behalf of the appellants/defendants in support of the fact that the suit land had been "bought in" by the government was lacking. In this context, it favourably recorded the offer made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to pay the arrears of land tax for securing the restoration of the suit land. The suit was thus decreed with the directions as heretofore mentioned. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has emphatically argued that in the face of the admission of respondent No.1/plaintiff that the suit land had been taken over by the government for the default in the payment of land tax, the High Court was in error in repudiating the same in absence of any challenge thereto at any point of time. According to Mr. Prasad, the impugnment on behalf of the respondent No.1/plaintiff had been directed consistently solely against the assignment of the suit land in favour of Kuruppaiah ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ored therewith to the exclusion of others, he urged. 18. No other point has been canvassed. Noticeably, both sides are ad idem that at all relevant times, RSO 45(4) was applicable to the facts of the case. 19. The materials on record, as available, and the contentious assertions have received our due consideration. That the Revenue Standing Orders, as framed, are of binding impact and are enforceable in law is an accepted premise as no demurer has been expressed by either side. These standing orders of the Board of Revenue, inter alia, outline the general procedure under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for realization of the arrears of land revenue and incidentals thereto. RSO 45, the pivotal provision for the present adjudication is an integral part of the said process. RSO 45 provides that if no bid is made in any sale of any land for realization of such arrears of land revenue etc., it should be purchased on behalf of the Government at a nominal price, the amount of the purchase money being written off the accounts as an irrecoverable arrears with the sanction of the competent authority and thereafter as per RSO 45(2), the government would have an absolute right ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the land the Tahsildar should issue a notice in writing to the defaulter informing him that the land would be re-assigned to him if he pays the arrears back assessment, balance of loan, if any, etc., and applies to the tahsildar for re-assignment of the land, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such notice. The arrears and the back assessment due from the defaulter and, whenever possible, the interest due on the arrears should be specified in the notice. In the case of lands bought-in before Fasli 1366 time may be given till 30th June, 1958 or such other date as the Board of Revenue may by general instructions specify. In such cases, if the original owner is not alive, the notice mentioned above should be issued to his undisputed heirs. On receipt of an application for re-assignment of the land, the Tahsildar will verify whether all the arrears and back assessment, etc., due, together with interest on the arrears, have been remitted by the applicant and whether the applicant, if he is not the original owner is the undisputed heir of the original owner. The tahsildar will then submit the application together with his recommendation to the Revenue Divisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the reassignment should be ordered only on the assignee paying the arrears of land revenue for which the land was bought in, together with interest thereon. (f) Back assessment should be collected from the year in which the land was bought in to the year of reassignment or for a period of 12 years, whichever is less. (g) In cases where the land has been under the occupation of any person or persons other than the original owner or his successor in title, for any period during the 12 years immediately preceding the year of reassignment, the period of occupation should be excluded and back assessment should be collected only for the remaining period. (h) In order to give effect to these pre-requisites, immediately after a land is bought in and its purchase money is written off, if there is no objection to the assignment of the land, the tahsildar should issue a notice in writing to the defaulter informing him that the land would be reassigned to him, if he pays the arrears, back assessment, balance of loan, if any etc. and if he applies to the Tahsildar for a reassignment to the land within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such notice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proved to the satisfaction of the assigning authority that the original owner was neither a willful defaulter nor was the default due to circumstance beyond his control and that the assignment proposed is otherwise not objectionable, the subsequent steps as outlined in RSO 45(4) with regard thereto in favour of such assignment would be wholly impertinent. As a matter of fact, as the provision predicates, the procedure prescribed for the assignment of the "bought in" lands in favour of the original owners or their undisputed heirs distinctly pre-supposes these contingencies. In absence thereof, the concerned authority is under no obligation to issue notice either to the original owners or their undisputed heir(s) informing him/them that the land would be reassigned to him/them if he/they pay the arrears, back assessment, back balance of loan, if any etc. on their application to the Tahsildar to the said effect. The eventuality of a fresh sale would occur in case, in response to such notice, no application for reassignment is received from the original owner or his undisputed heir or if he/they inform the Tahsildar that he/they do not desire to have the land back. Here again, the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants that admittedly the land was "bought in" in the year 1935 for the failure of the original owner/the respondent No.1 to pay the land tax in 1935, whereafter till 1958, he did not either object to such take over or offer to pay the arrears. It was only in 1958, when the "bought in" land was assigned in favour of Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar that he questioned the same on the ground of want of prior notice to him. This challenge, to reiterate, was focused only on the assignment of the "bought in" land to the Sanaiyars without prior notice to him and is not qua the process by which the land had been bought in by the government. Noticeably, the proceedings before the revenue authorities initiated on this challenge by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to the assignment of the "bought in" land to the Sanaiyars were also confined to the grievance of want of notice to the respondent No.1/plaintiff prior to such endowment to them. There is no shred of evidence to demonstrate that the default in the payment of land tax, which resulted in the taking over of the land by the government was not willful and that the same was due to circumstances beyond the defaulters' control an....