Allowed

C.R.Ramanath v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Apr 2013WP/25673/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a request for land assignment regarding 0.12 acres of 'poramboke' land. The petitioners established that possession was handed over in 1976 after payment of fixed compensation, and they constructed houses since then. Relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel established in Union Of India vs Godfrey Philips, the Court quashed the rejection order

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to pass assignment order in favour of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees House Building Society.

C.R.Ramanath Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated:- 18.04.2013

¶3

Coram:-

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.Raja

¶5

Writ Petition No.25673 of 2008 & MP Nos.1/08 and 1/09

¶6

C.R.Ramanath
2. K.Balasubramaniam
3. Doraisamy
4. M.Saroja
5. C.Periyasamy
6. K.Arumugam
7. K.Arumugam ... Petitioners
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Hosur.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways and Rural
Works Department,
Krishnagiri.
4. The Sub-Collector,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
5. The Commissioner,
Hosur Municipality,
Hosur.
6. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
7. The Commissioner,
Panchayat Union,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed in Na.Ka.No. 255588/08/H2 dated 10.10.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to pass an order of assignment in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the lands in S.F.No. 160/B, Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, measuring 0.12 acres, the possession of which was handed over on 26.5.1976 by the 4th respondent.

¶9

For petitioners: Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.Goviganesan.

¶10

For R1 to R6 : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, AGP For R7 : Mr.N.Subbarayalu. O R D E R

¶11

The petitioners herein seek for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed in Na.Ka.No.255588/08/H2, dated 10.10.2008, on the file of the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pass an order of assignment in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the land in S.F. No.160B, Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, measuring 0.12 acres, the possession of which was handed over on 26.05.1976 by the 4th respondent.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioners that the land measuring 1.37 and 0.04 acres respectively in Survey Nos.160/1A.T. and 160/C of Hosur Village was owned by one Krishnappa and it was subsequently conveyed to one Meenakshisundaram and 17 others as per registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.1974 bearing Document No.3371/74 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hosur. All the said persons were working under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) and after purchase, by forming lay-outs, they plotted out the land and started enjoying their respective portions. As the lay-out could not be formed properly, the Society needed 12 cents of land in S. No.160/B (the land in question) lying north-east to the petitioners-society's lands and shown in the revenue records as gravel pit poramboke, vesting with the Highways Department. Consequently, the Society made a request to the Highways Department to assign the land in question (12 cents in S.F. No.160/B) as it was not going to be useful to anyone except to meet the purpose for which the Society needed it. The 3rd respondent/Divisional Engineer (Highways Department), Krishnagiri, in his proceedings as per Na.Ka.No.10819/74/2, dated 30.09.1974, duly recommended for assigning the land in question on

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

payment of Rs.600/- towards the cost of the said land. Subsequent thereto, the said sum was also paid by the then Society vide Indian Bank Cheque No.230949 drawn in favour of the Divisional Manager, H & RW, Krishnagiri. Further, the then Panchayat Union had also passed a Resolution stating that they had no objection for assigning the lands in favour of the society.

¶15

The 4th respondent, by his proceedings in ROC No.4405/76A, dated 13.05.1976, passed an order permitting the Society to enter into the land in question and take possession pending disposal of the assignment with an assurance that, within a considerable time, the proposal for assignment would be finalized. That apart, by the same proceedings, the 2nd respondent was directed to hand over the possession. In view of the above, possession of the land in question was handed over on 26.05.1976 by the 2nd respondent and the Society had also taken possession on the said date. Consequently, the same was sold to several persons and thereafter, the petitioners purchased the land and now, they are in absolute possession of the same. When the matter stood thus, no step was taken by the respondents to fulfill the promise ie., pass the assignment order, and hence, representations dated 17.09.1977 and 28.09.2004 were made to the authorities, whereupon respondent No.4 called for an enquiry on 12.10.2004 and, in the said enquiry, the Secretary of the Society appeared in person and once again produced all the documents. Though the authority/R4, after perusing the documents, opined that it is a fit case for assignment, unfortunately, he expressed his inability to accede to the request citing the passage of time.

¶16

In that background, the petitioners had filed W.P. No.10214 of 2008 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus and this Court, by order dated 24.04.2008, with the consent of both sides, while directing the petitioners to submit copies of all the documents which they want to rely upon together with the copy of the last representation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to the first respondent, had simultaneously directed the said authority/R1 to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order or on its production. Besides that, the 5th respondent was also restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. In the light of the above order, the first respondent/District Collector delegated the power to the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Consequently, by the impugned proceedings, the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioners; hence, they have come up with the present writ petition.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once the possession of the land in question had already

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

been handed over to the Society/petitioners way back on 26.05.1976 after due payment of the cost of the land as demanded/fixed by the Highways Department, by taking advantage of passage of time, the respondents cannot now refuse to issue the assignment order in the name of the petitioners when the market value of the land in question was paid and accepted by the respondent and thereupon, physical possession of the land was also handed over to the petitioners. Further, the location of the 12 cents of land in question is such that it cannot be made use for any other purpose except to plot out the society's land properly and hence, in the given circumstances, it is absolutely necessary that the impugned order is quashed with a direction for issuance of the assignment order.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Pleader contended that wrongly, the respondents, in the year 1974, agreed to assign the land by receiving a sum of Rs.600/-, without knowing that the land belongs to the Panchayat Union and that patta stands in its name and therefore, the first respondent/District Collector or the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar cannot be compelled to issue any assignment order. Further, the very same petitioners have already, even before the respondents assigning the land, sold away the property on 30.04.2007 to other persons. Therefore, it would be highly improper on the part of the petitioners to ask for any assignment when they themselves had already alienated the property ie., a "Gravel Pit Poramboke" and classified as patta land in the name of Commissioner, Panchayat Union Council, Hosur, by way of sale. Therefore, it is quite unacceptable for the petitioners to claim patta for 12 cents after passage of more than three decades on the ground that they have paid a sum of Rs.600/- in the year 1974 by means of a cheque. More over, when the petitioners have encroached upon the patta land, the Collector of Krishnagiri-the first respondent after enquiring into the grievance of the petitioners, in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10214/2008 dated 24.4.2008, rightly issued the order rejecting the request of the petitioners as unacceptable. Also, the purchase of the land adjacent to S.F.No.160/B of Hosur Village by the writ petitioners during the year 1974 was a private purchase and the same was not even registered in the name of the society. Further, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees House Building Society was not a legally registered body. Therefore, they do not have any locus standi to state that 12 cents of land was handed over to the society in the year 1976 and hence, the same should be allowed to be used by granting the assignment in their favour. When the Government has not issued the assignment for the reasons best known to them, by passage of time, the value of the land has become very costlier and therefore, it is not proper now on the part of the petitioners to ask for assignment without fixing any reasonable amount for the land in question.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

By drawing the attention of this Court to the Revenue Standing Order 15, it was submitted that only landless and poor persons, who are likely to engage themselves in direct cultivation, shall be eligible for assignment of land free of land value subject to the conditions of assignment, imposed in the 'D' Form patta. But, in the present case, the assigning authority being a Revenue Divisional Officer to assign all valuable lands under the rules subject to the maximum limit of 0.60.5 hectares if the land is wet or irrigable dry and to the maximum limit of 1.21.5 hectares if the land is dry, the Government alone is the necessary party to issue the assignment order. But, the petitioners have not impleaded the Government. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the order of assignment in favour of the petitioners. For all these reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶23

I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side.

¶24

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the proceedings issued by the Sub-Collector, Hosur in ROC.4405/76 A. dated 13.5.76 shows that the Assistant Engineer E.B. (Construction), Hosur cum President, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Employees Housing Society applied for assignment of the land in Survey No.160/B of Hosur village measuring 0.12 acres for the society for construction of houses to their members. The land was classified as "Gravel pit poromboke" in the Revenue Accounts. The said proceedings further show that an enquiry was conducted before the land in question was taken up for consideration for issuance of the order of assignment and in the enquiry, it was found that the land was originally alienated to the Ex.District Board and subsequently, it was under the control of Panchayat Union, Hosur. Therefore, the Panchayat Union, Hosur has passed a Resolution No.16 dated 23.07.75 to assign the above land to the society. Subsequently, the President, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Housing Society, Hosur has remitted a sum of Rs.600/- towards the cost of the land value to the Tahsildar of Hosur and the Tahsildar of Hosur has also in his proceedings dated 28.4.1976 recommended that the land may be placed at the society's disposal for construction work in advance pending disposal of the assignment petition. In view of that, the Sub-Collector, Hosur, taking note of the fact that passing assignment order will take considerable time in finalisation of proposal for assignment of land in S.No.160/B of Hosur measuring 0.12 acres which was classified as "Gravel Pit Poramboke" permitted the President, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Housing Society to enter upon the land in S.No.160/B measuring 0.12 acres of Hosur Village and thereupon, the Tahsildar of Hosur was requested to hand over the land to the President of the Society after getting an assurance that they will abide by the Rules and Regulations in disposal of their application

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

for assignment of the land in question.

¶27

It is also relevant to refer to another proceeding, dated 31.12.1974, issued by the Superintending Engineer, (H&RW), Coimbatore to the Divisional Engineer (H&RW), Krishnagiri which says that the Divisional Engineer(H&RW), Krishnagiri was informed that there was no objection in assigning the Highways poramboke land available in S.F.160B of Hosur Village subject to two conditions, that the portion of the land should be 50 feet away from the centre line of the road and that the land should be assigned after collecting the necessary compensation amount thereof. In view of the above conditions imposed by the Superintending Engineer, (H&RW), Coimbatore, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.600/towards the value of the land. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner society also paid a sum of Rs.600/- vide Indian Bank cheque No.230949 drawn in favour of the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Krishnagiri. Therefore, when the Panchayat Union also passed a resolution stating that they have no objection for assigning the land in favour of the petitioner society and the request of petitioner society for assignment of the land in question covered in S.No.160/B was also accepted by the respondents and the physical possession of the land was also subsequently handed over to the petitioner society on 26.5.1976 by the second respondent-the Tahsildar, Hosur, it is clear that from the date of handing over the vacant possession of the land on 26.5.1976 the members of the society have been in physical possession of the land. Subsequently, the said "Gravel Pit poramboke land" was also plotted out and it was allotted to C.Periasamy, K.Arumugam and other persons. Further, when the 4^th respondent-Sub-Collector, Hosur, was requested to issue the assignment order on representation dated 17.9.77 made by the President of the petitioner society, followed by another representation dated 28.9.2004 addressed to the 4^th respondent with the same request to pass an order of assignment enclosing all the documents, the 4^th respondent called for an enquiry on 12.10.2004 at 3.00 p.m., and the Secretary of the Society also appeared in person by producing all the relevant documents. After perusing all the documents, the 4^th respondent only assured for the assignment of the land, but nothing turned out fruitful. Consequently, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10214 of 2008, seeking suitable direction to the respondents herein to issue the assignment order. This Court, by order dated 24.4.2008, disposed of the same and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶28

"7. Considering the submissions made on either side, the following order is passed:

¶29

"The petitioners shall submit copies of all the documents which they want to rely upon together

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

with the copy of the last representation dated 31.3.2008 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the first respondent, who shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on its production."

¶32

A reading of the above order goes to show that an order of injunction was also granted by this Court on the apprehension expressed before this Court by the petitioners that their possession was at threat. By virtue of the order of injunction granted by this Court on 28.10.2008 the petitioners have been in physical possession and subsequently, they have also put up their construction around the land in question by individually raising their own houses. At this stage, when the request of the petitioners was accepted for assignment of the land by the respondent on receipt of the market value of Rs.600/- in the year 1974 and admittedly, when the amount was also paid by the petitioner society vide Indian Bank Cheque No.230949 drawn in favour of the Divisional Engineer, H&RW, Krishnagiri and subsequently, when this Court also, by order dated 28.10.2008, granted an order of injunction regarding the land in question classified as "Gravel Pit Poromboke" in the Revenue Records, it is but proper that the prayer of the petitioners should be granted.

¶33

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a Judgment of the Apex Court in Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. (1985 SCC (4) 369) and the relevant observation made on the doctrine of promissory estoppel is given as under:-

¶34

" 8. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well- established in the administrative law of India. It represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, lt is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the inter position of equity which has always, true to its form " stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law.

¶35

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government in the exercise of its governmental, public or executive functions at the doctrine of executive necessity or freedom of future executive action cannot be invoked to defeat the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel."

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

The language employed in the above-said Judgment of the Apex Court makes it clear that the doctrine of promissory estoppel, being an equitable doctrine, is very well applicable against the Government in exercise of its governmental, public or executive functions. In that perspective, it is to be mentioned that the respondents/governmental agencies, having received the cost of the land in the year 1974 from the petitioner, put them in possession and allowed them to deal with the land to form out the lay-outs, by long passage of time ie., 40 years, are absolutely estopped in principle from wriggling out of their promise to assign the land. In other words, after receiving the sum of Rs.600/- as fixed by none else than the Highways Department itself as the cost of the land, had the respondents thought it fit not to assign the land, they could have then and there decided against the petitioners and asked them to return back the land by remitting back the money received from them. Having failed to do so at any near point of time in the past 40 years, now, the respondents cannot even be allowed to say otherwise to the adverse interest of the petitioners.

¶38

In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order of assignment in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in Survey No.160/B, Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District measuring 0.12 acres as expeditiously as possible. Since the petitioners have also filed an affidavit dated 12.4.2013 stating that all the petitioners do not have any objection to pass the order of assignment in favour of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees House Building Society in respect of the lands in S.F.No.160/B, Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 0.12 cents, the possession of which was handed over on 26.05.1976 by the 4^th respondent, this Court directs the respondents to forthwith pass the order of assignment in favour of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees House Building Society.

¶39

Accordingly, W.P.No.25673/2008 stands allowed. No costs. Connected pending M.P.No.1/2008 is disposed of. M.P.No.1/2009 is dismissed.

Sd/ Asst. Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

JI/sal

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

¶46

The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Hosur. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Krishnagiri. 4. The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 5. The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur. 6. The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 7 The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Hosur, Krishnagiri Disgtrict +1 CC to The Government Pleader CC SR No.23136 +1 CC to M/s.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate SR No.23000 WP No.25673/08. SAI (CO) JV / 03.06.2013

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.Ramanath v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Ramanath v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Mahalingam Vs the Principal Chief

Saravanakani @ Senthilvel Vs Secretary to Govt. of India

R.Egamparam Vs the Deputy Chairman

D.Sudhakarrasu Vs State of Tamilnadu

Tmt.Lakshmi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Tamil Nadu Retired Village Vs the Government of Tamilnadu