Govt can’t be mute when its property is matter of litigation: HC

Madurai: Madras high court has observed that govt, being the custodian of public land, cannot remain a mute spectator when valuable govt property is the subject matter of litigation, and failure of responsible officers to contest civil suits seriously affects public interest.Justice N Senthilkumar directed the principal secretary of the revenue and disaster management department to issue a comprehensive GO prescribing clear guidelines to all the govt pleaders and revenue officials, specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits filed against the govt, mandatory steps to be taken when govt officials are set ex parte, timelines for filing written statements, applications to set aside ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences for dereliction of duty.The judge directed that the govt shall consider constituting a legal cell in each taluk to be monitored by the district collector, district revenue officer and revenue divisional officer. The judge also directed the additional chief secretary of the department to file a status report before the court in four months indicating the number of cases within the jurisdiction of Madurai bench in which the govt remained ex parte and the steps taken to set aside such ex parte orders.The court was hearing a civil revision petition challenging and seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the sub-court in Ramanathapuram in 2021.The judge observed that it is seen from the records that the suit property is classified as govt natham poramboke land. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the said property. In the suit, the Ramanathapuram district collector was arrayed as the first defendant and Rameswaram tahsildar was arrayed as the second defendant. Both of them remained ex parte, and an ex parte decree was passed on March 9, 2001.Taking note of the fact that the govt took steps to initiate action only against the then tahsildar and the then govt pleader, the judge observed that there is no reference to any action proposed or initiated against the then collector. Refusing to accept the state's submission that the tahsildar is the custodian of records, the judge observed that it cannot justify the inaction on the part of the collector in a case where he was a party to the suit and remained ex parte.It was further brought to the notice of the court that applications were filed to condone the delay of 384 days and to set aside the ex parte decree, which were dismissed on June 14, 2004. The govt did not challenge the dismissal. This clearly demonstrated lack of diligence in safeguarding govt property, observed the judge, and directed the principal secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the then collector in the decree passed in the civil suit in 2001.