Disposed

Mrs.Latha v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Dec 2016WP/1543/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order threatening cancellation of a land allotment for violation of cultivation conditions. The Court avoided deciding the merits, directing respondents to initiate proceedings providing an opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law, before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to initiate proceedings providing opportunity to the petitioner before passing orders on merits in accordance with law.

Mrs.Latha Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 1543 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶6

Latha ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Salem District
Salem.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Mettur Taluk
Salem District.
3. The Tahsildar
Mettur Taluk
Salem District.
4. Mathes
S/o. Arjunan
Thoramangalam Village
Mettur Taluk
Salem District. .. Respondents
(R4 impleaded as per order of court dated 31.01.2013 made in
M.P.No 1 of 2012)

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents from cancelling the order of allotment in order No. 14599/ 2007 dated 29.12.2007 for the Survey No.149/2, Thoramangalam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District except under due process of law and pass further orders.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr. A. Sundaravadhanan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. S. Diwakar,

¶10

Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr. A. Raman for R4

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus, restraining the respondents from cancelling the order of allotment in order No. 14599/2007 dated 29.12.2007 for the Survey No.149/2 Thoramangalam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District except under due process of law.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner was allotted with land in Survey No.149/2 of an extent of 0.04.0 hectares in Thoramangalam Village, Mettur Taluk, vide order No.14599/2007 dated 29.12.2007 by the third respondent, on certain conditions, namely the petitioner can avail loan from co-operative society for creation of well and cultivation purpose, that the land should not be sold for a period of 30 years and that the petitioner should cultivate the land within one year from the date of order. Further, it was directed that if the land is not a cultivatable land, the petitioner should take steps to make the land as cultivable within a period of two years. Since it is necessary that the lands have to be changed in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, for availing loans from Co-operative Societies, the petitioner made representation to the third respondent, seeking to issue suitable orders. Since no orders were passed on his representations dated 15.11.2008, 16.06.2009, 27.05.2010 etc., by the second and third respondents, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner, on condition that the said land should be cultivated within a period of one year and if it is not a cultivatable land, the petitioner should take effective steps to make the land cultivable, within a period of two years. To avail loans from Co-operative Society for developing the land, the revenue records have to be changed in the name of the petitioner. Explaining the above facts, the petitioner submitted representations to the third respondent. Since, the same was not considered by the third respondent, the petitioner made representations to the second respondent. However, no action was taken on the representations, by both the respondents. Therefore, he was constrained to file this writ petition.

¶16

Relying on the counter filed by the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per Condition No.5 of the terms of the assignment order, the assignee has to cultivate the land within one year. But, the

¶17

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

¶18

petitioner has violated the said condition of the assignment order and so the order is liable to be terminated. Learned counsel further stated that there is no connection with cultivation of land to the change of entries in revenue records. Further it is stated that the petitioner's husband Arthanarieswaran is having land in the same village and the petitioner has given a false statement before the authority to obtain the said assignment order. He fairly contended that as of today, no action has been initiated by the department, for the violation of the above said conditions.

¶19

In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if at all there is any violation in the assessment order, this Court directs the respondents to initiate proceedings, after providing suitable opportunity to the petitioner, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

With the above observation, the writ petition is
disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub-Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1.The District Collector
Salem District
Salem.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Mettur Taluk
Salem District.

¶21

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

¶22

The Tahsildar Mettur Taluk Salem District.

¶23

+1 CC to Mr. A. Sundaravadhanan, Advocate vide sr 72857

¶24

+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader, vide sr 73292

¶25

W.P. No. 1543 of 2011
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2011
MV
sp/24/1

¶26

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

Mrs.Latha v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Latha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleth Mary Vs the Superintending Engineer

S.Vaithiyanathan, Vs Government of India

R.Srinivasan, Vs Government of India

M/S.Tamilaga Industrial School Vs the Director

K.Damodharan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

Sairam Shipping Science Vs Indian Maritime University