THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFJCE, THANJORE & ORS. versus G. THAMBIDURAI & ANOTJIER

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.CR. I 
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFJCE, THANJORE & ORS. 
A 
v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANOTJiER 
(Civil Appeal No. 6435 of 2017) .. 
MAY09,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] c.7" 
Revenue Standing Orders: 
RSO 45 ~ [-and in question taken over. by Government in the 
year 1935, for non-payment of land tax and converted into 'bought 
B 
in' land_,,_ Later further converted into 'Punjai Tharisu' (Government _ c 
pry) fallow land - In the year 1958, the land was assigned by the 
Government to third parties - The assig111i1ents were cancelled at 
the .instance of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff (claiiniilg to be the . 
so.le legal heir. to the land) - In, the year 1981, the. responde11t no .. 11 
plaintiff offered to pay the arrears of land tax for. restoration of 
land to him -,- Thereafter respondent no. 1 iplaintiff filed suit taking 
D 
the. ground that in view of RSO 45 (4), land could be reassigned to 
him or his legal heirs in preference to others, on payment of dues -
Suit decreed by trial court - Decree set aside by appellate court -
High Court affirmed the order of trial court and directed the revenue 
authorities to restore the land in question to the respondent no .. 11 
E 
plaintiff and to mutate the land in his name - On appeal, held: To 
avail the preferenq_e in the matter of assignment of 'bought in' lands, 
the obligatory pre-requisite is the absence of wilful default in the 
payment of land tax by the original owner; that the default was due 
to the circumstances beyond his control; and that assignment to him 
again is otherwise unobjectionable - In the present case, there is 
F 
no evidence to the effect that the respondent no. I/plaintiff fulfilled 
the three pre-requisites so as to render him preferable to others for· 
assignment .of the 'bought in' land - The huge delay on the part of 
the respondent no. ]/plaintiff in clearing off the .. arrears also goes . 
against him - Hence,· the respondent no. I/plaintiff is not entitled to.. 
G 
preference contemplated in RSO 45 (4) - Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Recovery Act, 1864. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Revenue Standing Orders of the ~oard of 
Revenue, inter alia, outline the general procedure under the Tamil 
H 
I 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
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 31-rears 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 ft.SO 45(2), the 
Government would have an absolute right to lands purchased by 
it and consequently such land would not be treated as a village 
waste available for occupation by ryots or without darkhast, but 
has to be entered in a Taluka Register No.ISA and would not be 
dealt with under the Darkhast Rules and that any unauthorized 
entry upon it would render the trespasser liable. [Para 19] (11-
F-H; 12-A] 
2. To avail the preference in the matter of assignment of 
"bought in" lands, the obligatory pre-requisite is the absence of 
willful default in the payment of land tax by the original owner. 
Further the default, if any, was due to circumstances beyond his 
control and that assignment to him again is otherwise 
unobjectionable. It is only when these pre-conditions exist and 
the assigning authority is satisfied that the original owner was 
not a willfUl defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances 
beyond the defaulter's control and that such assignment is 
otherwise unobjectionable that the original owners or their 
undisputed heirs would have to be preferred to the outsiders. If 
it is not 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, Jhe 
subsequent steps as outlined in RSO 45(4) with regard thereto 
in favour of such assignment would be wholly impertinent. 
In 
absence of these contingencies, the concerned authority is under 
no obligation to issue notice either to the original owners or 
their undis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.