India Sirimathy
India Sirimathy
India Sirimathy
CORAM
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first
respondent relating to the impugned order G.O.(2D) No.364, Revenue (Ser-2)(1)
Department, dated 17.8.2012 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct
the respondents to sanction full pension to the petitioner within a specified time
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
W.P(MD)No.3070 of 2020:
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first
respondent relating to the impugned orders in G.O.(2D)No.159, Revenue (Ser-2)
(1) Department, dated 06.04.2009 and G.O.(2D)No.364, Revenue (Ser-2)(1)
Department, dated 17.08.2012 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct
the respondents to sanction full pension and full DCRG to the petitioner with
arrears from the date of retirement with 7.5% interest as already decided, within a
specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
In both cases:
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 18636 of 2013 is filed to quash the
impugned order passed in G.O. (2D) No. 364, Revenue (Ser-2)(1) Department,
dated 17.08.2012 and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay full pension.
direct the respondents to sanction full pension and full DCRG to the petitioner
3.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has served in the
Revenue Department for the past 35 years and lastly served as Distillery Officer
in the cadre of Deputy Collector in the Rajashree Sugars and Chemicals Private
attained superannuation on 28.02.2006 and was not allowed to retire, but was
3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
Government issued orders that the petitioner is eligible for 2/3 rd of pension and
DCRG shall be paid. The 1/3rd of the eligible pension and the retirement gratuity
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the Government did not provide
any opportunity before imposing the punishment. Based on the above said G.O.,
and reduced DCRG. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petitions are
filed.
on the petitioner for carrying out the orders of the then Assistant Settlement
directed the petitioner to grant patta to an extent of 2873-03 hectares in Plot No.
4/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
36, i.e., S.No.280 part of Megamalai Village under Section 11 A of the Tamil
Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The petitioner
has carried out the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in Proceedings No.
4264/95/A3, dated 25.08.1996. The further contention of the petitioner is that the
Assistant Settlement Officer, the quasi judicial authority passed orders directing
the petitioner to grant patta, as per his proceedings, dated 24.07.1996, in turn
based on the orders, dated 31.03.1995, of the Director of Survey and Settlement,
as Ryoti.
Settlement, Chennai, who is the Head of the Department, who treated land in
question as Ryoti has been left scot free, then, the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Madurai, who directed the petitioner to grant patta has also been left scot free by
of 2007. Accepting the order of this Court, the Government issued G.O. (2D) No.
299, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.2010, dropping the show cause notice
issued against the Assistant Settlement Officer and it has become final. But the
5/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
petitioner, who carried out the orders of the superior officials alone was taken for
Officer, Thanjavur and as per the directions, dated 29.08.1996, of the District
of Megamalai Village was cancelled and the necessary entries were made in the
the punishment imposed on the petitioner is extremely harsh and the petitioner
8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner
was posted as Tahsildar in Andipatti Taluk Office, Theni District and he worked
from 25.12.1995 till 31.12.1996. During such period, he had illegally granted
pattas to the land belonging to the Government which is worth crores of rupees.
The land in question Survey No.280 is situated in Megamalai Village and has
been classified as “Forest Poramboke Land” and patta cannot be granted to any
individuals in respect of the said survey lands including the legal heirs of Kambal
6/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
@ Veeraiah Chettiar. The petitioner was a Tahsildar, while conducting the legal
being a Tahsildar who is the Custodian of Government lands did not raise any
objections either orally or in writing, by stating the said land were forest lands in
nature and patta cannot be granted in favour of any individual. But the petitioner
has issued orders based on the proceedings, dated 24.07.1996, in collusion with
intension and the petitioner has directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey and
large extent of 2877 hectares of forest land in S.No.280 for handing over the said
lands within 8 days from the date of receipt of instructions, knowing very well
that the lands marked as forest and the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer
were not accordance to law and the said work cannot be done or completed within
eight days period. Thereby, the petitioner approved the land without any factual
inspection and carried out changes in the “Village and Thaluk Accounts” and
failed to take steps to protect the lands which are all forest lands. The petitioner
being a responsible Government official, duty bound to protect the lands but
7/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
granting patta to the forest land in favour of private individuals who were legal
9. After noticing all such irregularities and illegalities the petitioner was
26.05.2005. The petitioner was called for to submit further explanation by show
cause notice, dated 26.05.2005 and the petitioner submitted an explanation to the
he was not allowed to retire as per Fundamental Rules 56 (1) (c), vide G.O. (2D)
No. 92, Revenue Department, dated 28.02.2006. Further, the Government has
disagreed that the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer and the Government
this Court, vide order, dated 28.11.2008, directed the respondents to pass final
orders in the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the final orders were passed in
8/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
Rule 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, since the petitioner has attained
petitioner's pension and death cum retirement gratuity. The said order is
11. The co-delinquent namely Muthusamy was not allowed to retire and the
same compulsory retirement was imposed on the said Muthusamy also, vide
order, dated 28.05.2009 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.12976 of 2009
and the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court, vide order, dated 16.07.2009
and the said Writ Petition was allowed solely on the ground that no opportunity
was given to the said Muthusamy and the matter was remitted back to the
disciplinary authority for fresh disposal. The Government preferred Writ Appeal
in W.A.No.775 of 2010 and an order was passed confirming the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 23.03.2011. The Department could
not conduct fresh enquiry in time. However, the said Muthusamy was placed
9/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
department did not conduct any enquiry. Hence, the punishment of compulsory
retirement has been set aside and there was a direction to the respondents to pay
50% of the salary for the period of suspension from 28.05.2009 till the date of
22.03.2017, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, G.O.
2(1) Section, dated 18.06.2019, was passed. The petitioner has relied on the said
claiming similar relief. But in this present case, the petitioner was given sufficient
opportunity. Hence, he cannot compare with the said Muthusamy. Hence, the
allowed by an order, dated 05.12.2018 on the ground that the learned Single
Judge only adverting the merits of the order passed in the punishment order of
compulsory retirement inflicting the writ petitioner. Further, there was a direction
10/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
to release the retirement pension with interest and the Division Bench allowed the
Writ Appeal by an order, dated 21.12.2020 and also remanded back the same to
the learned Single Judge to decide the case on merits and pass appropriate orders.
submitted that the person who was working as Deputy Inspector of Survey was
also under departmental proceedings and after due process, he was also a given
Department, dated 19.06.2009 and the same was also challenged in W.P.(MD)No.
12.The petitioner has taken a stand that his co-delinquent namely one
Soundara Pandian, who was working then as Assistant Settlement Officer was
also issued charge memo under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
and the said proceedings was quashed in W.P.(MD)No.10682 of 2007 and the said
14.05.2010. The said proceedings cannot be equated to the present writ petition
11/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
judicial review against the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as punishment,
since they are very rare circumstances. In case the findings of Enquiry Officer as
then, the Court can interfere and not otherwise. The petitioner has faced serious
charges and carried out such illegal acts. The Government has suffered financial
loss as the pattas were issued for available Government lands which are more
fully, described as forest lands without conducting any valid and reasonable
Taluk Tahsildar being the custodian of Government lands, even though his
Officer for issue of patta, he should not have acted to implement the orders of the
prepare sub-division records and 'B' sketches within 8 days and carried out the
being the custodian of Government land has failed to take effective steps to
protect the Government lands and blindly implemented the orders of the Assistant
12/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
Settlement Officer. Thus, he has helped private parties for getting ryotwari patta
for presumed pecuniary benefits. His anti-Government attitude led to huge loss to
the Government. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondents are legally valid
and the respondents did not commit any illegality or irregularity and prayed to
14.It is seen that while the petitioner was serving as Tahsildar in Andipatti
Taluk he had granted patta to the legal heirs of Kambal @ Veeraiah Chettiar. The
contention of the petitioner is that patta was issued based on the orders passed by
the Assistant Settlement Officer’s order dated 24.07.1996 and who in turn has
passed the order based on the order of Director of Survey and Settlement,
as Ryoti. Since all the higher authorities have passed an order stating the land as
13/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
Ryoti and directed the petitioner to issue Patta, the petitioner being subordinate
have carried out the orders of the higher officials. Moreover, the disciplinary
proceedings of some of the officials were dropped and some of the proceedings
were quashed by the High Court. The co-delinquents namely Muthusamy Firka
proceedings were dropped or quashed by the High Court. Since the petitioner is
therefore the petitioner is also entitled to be treated on par with other delinquents
and hence the punishment ought to be quashed. The Learned Counsel for the
and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331. The Supreme Court has held that the
punishment are arbitrary and unjustified as compared to his subordinate who had
been completely laid of and he is the culprit of misconduct. The petitioner relied
on the judgment and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted under:
“20.We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of
the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power
whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge
if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could
ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would
14/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
15/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
15. However the respondents submitted that the officials who are involved
in the said patta proceedings faced disciplinary proceedings and the Government
had initiated action against all the delinquents. But some of the proceedings were
quashed by the High Court, some of the proceedings were upheld by the High
Court. Wherever the proceedings were quashed or wherever the writ petitions
were allowed, in order to obey the orders of the High Court the disciplinary
proceedings were dropped. The petitioner cannot claim to treat on par with them
since in each case there is some difference. In the case of the said Muthusamy the
High Court directed to conduct re-enquiry within a stipulated time since the
delinquent was not granted opportunity, since the re-enquiry was not conducted
within the said stipulated time, the punishment of dismissal was modified as
compulsory retirement, but the same was quashed. Likewise the Soundara
Pandian disciplinary proceedings were dropped based on the order of the Court.
16/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have brought to
the knowledge to the higher officials that the land is “forest land” and patta
cannot be issued to individuals. The plea of the petitioner that he had followed the
orders of the higher officials cannot be accepted since the petitioner is having a
duty to protect the forest land. Moreover the petitioner has issued patta within a
period of 8 days from the date of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and
surveyor to prepare sub-division records and 'B' sketches within 8 days and
carried out the changes in respective accounts, hence this would be evident that
the petitioner has acted for personal gains and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
16.On hearing the rival contentions this Court is of the considered opinion
entitled to the same benefit as held in various cases. The delinquents deserve to
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
17. However since the question in land in classified as “Forest Land”, this
endangering the very existence of the animals, flora and fauna, forests, rivers,
lakes, water bodies, mountains, glaciers, air and of course human. Strangely the
destruction is carried on by few humans. Any such act ought to be checked at all
levels. A report states, in India protected areas (like National Parks and
Sanctuaries) notified under the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 occupy less than
human survival. Rest of 95% of India’s geographical area is available for humans.
Inspite of the same it is unknown why the human is so desperate to intrude in the
said 5% area. The indiscriminate activities in the said 5% area are causing huge
18/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
terminal loss. Whether it is Amazon forest, sea life, elephants and tigers, rivers
and lakes, glaciers or aquifers is strongly impacting human life. The few
remaining original forests - our biodiversity treasury- are being destroyed to make
way for huge mines or dams or lucrative real estate projects. And we attempt to
pacify the destruction with the words like 'compensatory afforestation' and it is
like giving sanction to kill all wild tigers and replace them by farming the same
destroy the nature. If sustainable development finishes off all our biodiversity and
Writ Petition (PIL) No.140 of 2015, the “Nature's Rights Commission” should be
formed to protect the Nature. The judgment has extensively dealt with the issue of
19/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
protecting nature and its resources. In the judgment it has also been stated that,
“polluting and damaging the rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air
and glaciers will be legally equivalent to harming, hurting and causing
injury to person. Rivers, Forests, Lakes, Water Bodies, Air, Glaciers and
Springs have a right to exist, persist, maintain, sustain and regenerate
their own vital ecology system. The rivers are not just water bodies and
these are scientifically and biologically living. The rivers, forests, lakes,
water bodies, air, glaciers, human life are unified and are indivisible
whole. Mother Earth is grasping for breath. We must recognize and bestow
the Constitutional legal rights to the 'Mother Earth'. The rights of these
legal entities shall be equivalent to the rights of human beings and the
injury / harm caused to these bodies shall be treated as harm/injury
caused to the human beings and shall proceed under the common law,
penal laws, environmental laws and other statutory enactments governing
the field.”
22.In the said judgment the Hon’ble Court by invoking “parens patriae
jurisdiction”, has declared the Glaciers including Gangotri & Yamunotri, rivers,
streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests wetlands, grasslands,
moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all
and conserve them. The Court also accorded the rights akin to fundamental rights/
legal rights for their survival, safety, sustenance and resurgence. Then the Court
has appointed eminent persons to voice them, maintain its status and also to
20/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
23.The past generations have handed over the 'Mother Earth' to us in its
pristine glory and we are morally bound to hand over the same Mother Earth to
the next generation. It is right time to declare / confer juristic status to the
“Living Being” having legal entity / legal person / juristic person / juridical
person / moral person / artificial person having the status of a legal person, with
preserve and conserve them. They are also accorded the rights akin to
fundamental rights / legal rights / constitutional rights for their survival, safety,
sustenance and resurgence in order to maintain its status and also to promote their
health and wellbeing. The State Government and the Central Government are
directed to protect the “Mother Nature” and take appropriate steps to protect
24. Since in the present case the petitioner has issued patta to the
Megamalai forest land for 2877.03.0 hectares of land in S.No.280 the petitioner
21/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
quashed or dropped based on this Court orders, since the patta were cancelled
Thanjavur and as per the directions, dated 29.08.1996, of the District Collector,
Megamalai Village was cancelled and the necessary entries were made in the
modified as stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect and
punishment is imposed for the act done against mother nature. The respondents
are directed to implement this punishment within a period of four weeks from the
25. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be
Tmg
22/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18636 of 2013 and 3070 of 2020
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
To
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
19.04.2022
23/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis