Disposed

Mrs. Amirtham v. the Land Commissioner

Madras HC26 Oct 2018WP/15386/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for Certiorari to quash re-assignment orders under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms rules, the High Court found procedural irregularities in both assignments. The court directed the respondents to hear all parties, including petitioners and earlier assignees, to decide on a fresh assignment process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; the 1st respondent directed to hear revision petition by 3rd and 4th respondents, hear petitioners, and pass orders.

Mrs. Amirtham Vs the Land Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 19.09.2018

¶3

Pronounced on : 26.10.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No. 15386 of 2008

¶7

and
M.P. No.1 of 2008
1.Amirtham
2.Manjula
3.Chellammal
4.Muthukrishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Land Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Sub Collector,
Madurantakam Division.
(R2- amended as per order dated
19.06.2018 in W.M.P. No.30256 of 2017
in W.P.No.15386 of 2008)
3.Rama Gounder
4.Raghavan ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in pursuant of the order dated 02.04.2008 in D1/R.P.No.24/2007(L.Ref.) on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Respondents : Mr.N.Manikandan

¶10

Government Advocate for R.1 & R.2 : Mrs.P.Kavitha Balakrishnan for R.3 & R.4 O R D E R

¶11

The above writ petition is filed to call for the records in pursuant of the order dated 02.04.2008 in D1/R.P.No.24/2007(L.Ref.) on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶12

2.Heard, Mr.V.Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.N.Manikandan, learned Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and Mrs.Kavitha

¶13

Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶14

3.The petitioners are the subsequent assignees of land to the extent of 2 acres and 27 cents under the order of Assignment dated 03.10.2006 which has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 02.04.2008.

¶15

4.The petitioners claimed that they are in possession of the land and have also obtained patta and are paying kist for the land assigned to them since then.

¶16

5.It is submitted that the land to the extent of 5.31 acres was originally declared as excess land in the hands of one Mr.KallappaReddiar, the original owner of the land under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land), Act, 1965.

¶17

6.The aforesaid land was originally assigned on 31.01.1983 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 in favour of five different persons.

¶18

7.Three of the original assignees however sold the land to an extent of 2 acres and 27 cents in favour of the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents contrary to the conditions of the order of assignments made to them. There was a lock in period of 20 years before such a land can be transferred by assignees of lands.

¶19

8.Under these circumstances, the assignment made to the original assignees in the year 1983 to the extent of land sold to the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents was cancelled by an order dated 20.04.1999.

¶20

9.Thereafter, fresh applications for assignment under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 were invited.

¶21

In response to the same, the petitioners applied for assignment. The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents did not apply for assignment of the lands when the fresh applications were called for assignment of the aforesaid lands. They have stated that they were not aware of the proceedings initiated for cancelling the assignment of the lands made to their predecessors.

¶22

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

¶23

11.In the impugned order dated 02.04.2008, it has been mentioned that notice in Form “B” dated 16.11.1999 was invited. However, there was no response and therefore again afresh notice dated 22.03.2000 was issued.

¶24

12.In response to the above notice, seven applications were received. However, no action was taken. Again notice was issued on 20.07.2000 and eight applications were received in response to it.

¶25

13.All the applications received pursuant to notice dated 22.03.2000 and 20.07.2000 were taken up for consideration for re-assignment. The Petitioners’ application were considered and accepted.

¶26

14.Under the circumstances, petitioners remitted money. Thereafter, by a Deed in Form “F” dated 11.7.2006 the lands were assigned to the petitione and necessary changes were affected in the revenue records.

¶27

15.Immediately thereafter, the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents preferred an appeal against the said order of re-assignment of impugned properties and requested that the lands be assigned in their favour.

¶28

16.There was no reply from the 2^nd respondent. Hence, the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents made representation to all the officials concerned. By virtue of the impugned revision order dated 02.04.2008, the assignment made to the petitioners were suo-moto cancelled in the exercise of the revisionary powers vested with the 1^st respondent under Rule 11 (3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.

¶29

17.Thus, the order of re-assignment passed by the then Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) on 11.7.2006 was set aside with the direction to publish afresh notice in Form “B” as is contemplated under Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules in accordance with the provisions of the said rules.

¶30

18.The impugned order is assailed on the following grounds:-

¶31

“That the 1^st respondent erred in not appreciating the fact that under the Rule 8(6) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. Any alienation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ liable for cancellation of the assignment and

¶32

that the 1^st respondent erred in not appreciating the fact that the earlier assignees sold the land in the year 1986 in favour of 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶33

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they have obtained patta. It was further stated that under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, the petitioners are entitled priority for assignment and that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste who contribute their own physical labour and their family members in the cultivating land. They finally said that the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents cannot claim title contrary to the deed of assignment and that the lands cannot be sold contrary to the terms of the deed of assignment and therefore the respondent No. 3 and 4 had no locus standi to either file appeal or revision.”

¶34

19.The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents have filed their detailed counter and have reiterated the content of the same.

¶35

20.The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents have given their representations dated 21.01.2008 before the 1^st respondent stating that they purchased the land in the year 1986 and was unaware of the lock-in period.

¶36

21.The learned counsel for the 3^rd and 4^th respondents submitted that as per the Board Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue the person involved in direct cultivation, cultivating tenant should be given preference in case of assignment of the land under Section 94 (2)(a) T.N. Act 59 of 1961.

¶37

22.It was submitted that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents are cultivating tenant in actual possession and enjoyment of the land for more than 12 years. Hence the land should have been assigned to them. However, the petitioners were given the assignment of lands in favour of the petitioners by the 2^nd respondent was irregular.

¶38

23.It was further submitted that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent against the order of the 2^nd respondent making assignment of the land (Disputed property) in favour of the petitioners herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

24.It was further submitted that the 1^st respondent exercising the Suo Moto Reversionary powers vested under Rule 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965 conducted the enquiry and they were issued with proper notice. The petitioners and the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents were present and represented by their counsels. After hearing the arguments order on merits came to be passed cancelling the re-assignment made by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶40

25.Under these circumstances, the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents requested for re-assignment of the land as they were poor agriculturists and that they have been in possession of the land for the past 22 years and have been cultivating on the aforesaid land.

¶41

26.They further averred that the patta was also issued to them and they did not suspect any irregularity in the title to the land and they were regularly paying land revenue to the Government.

¶42

27.It was further argued before the 1^st respondent that the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villipuram ought to have verified before assigning the lands in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶43

28.The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents further submitted that innumerable representations were not considered by the 2^nd respondent as a result of which they could not perfect the title.

¶44

29.It was further submitted that in fact, that the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents were also eligible to participate in the re-assignment and the fact that they had paid amounts way back in 1983 was good reason to cancel the assignments made in 2006 in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶45

30.Learned counsel for the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents has submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram has directed the Sub-Inspector of Survey (Land Reforms) to make necessary change by restoring the land records as “Land-Reforms Surplus Lands”. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

31.Further, notice in Form “D” dated 07.08.2008 has been issued. The 3^rd respondent has also obtained an order of ex-parte permanent injunction dated 17.03.2011 in O.S.No.25 of 2011 to restrain the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶47

32.It was further submitted that this court by an order dated 05.04.2013 in W.P No.8009 of 2013 filed by the 3^rd respondent has directed the 2^nd respondent therein to consider the representation made by the 3^rd respondent herein and pass orders on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners who were the 3^rd to 7^th respondents therein.

¶48

33.The said order was made in absence of the petitioners herein after recording that no adverse orders were being made against the petitioners while passing the above order.

¶49

34.The 3^rd respondent was directed to comply with the aforesaid order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order in W.P.No.8009 of 2013. Pursuant to the above order of this court in W.P. No.8009 of 2013 notice of hearing also has been issued to the parties herein.

¶50

35.However, during the interregnum, the land was reassigned by the 2^nd respondent on 08.11.2013 in favour of Krishnaveni, Chitravel, Rajamanickam and Ragavan. Since the said re-assignment was contrary to the directions contained in W.P. No.8009 of 2013 and the observing the mistake and with a view to set right the irregularity in the re-assignment order dated 08.11.2013, the 1^st respondent has taken up the case on suo-motu revision under rule 11(3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.

¶51

36.Therefore, notice was ordered on 28.12.2017 fixing the hearing of all the parties concerned herein on 08.01.2018. It appears that no further proceedings have been taken thereafter.

¶52

37.I have considered the facts of the case and the rival arguments advanced.

¶53

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

¶54

38.The facts narrated above which have come to light during the course of the hearing, it is clear that irregularities have been committed by the office of the 1^st and the 2^nd respondent as also on the part of the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents. The petitioners got the benefit of assignment. The assignment in their favour has also been made irregularly. The last assignment made in 2013 also has been cancelled restoring the position to the date of the petition.

¶55

The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents have been possession of the land while the assignment of land to the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents’ predecessor was cancelled without notice to them.

¶56

40.Though the 3^rd and 4^th respondents have purchased the land contrary to the order of assignment dated 31.01.1983, they had a right to be heard before the cancellation was made as they were in possession of the land. They also had a right to participate in the fresh assignment.

¶57

41.Instead, assignment was cancelled on 20.04.1999 and re-assigned to the petitioners on 03.10.2006 which assignment was also made contrary to the Rules. During all these period, the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents continued to be in possession of land unaware of the cancellation in 1999. Though there were mutations and changes made, the petitioners were never put in possession of the land. The 3^rd and the 4^th respondents have been possession of the land.

¶58

42.Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the land is assigned afresh by allowing all the parties to participate in the fresh assignment. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents have also filed petition before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and this court by its order dated 05.04.2003 in W.P.No.8009 of 2009 has directed the 2^nd respondent to consider their representation. The said order is yet to be complied by the 1^st respondent in view of the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶59

43.The 1^st respondent is therefore directed to take up the hearing of the revision petition filed by the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents and dispose the same. Needless to state that the 1^st respondent shall hear the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the 3^rd and 4^th respondents herein and pass

¶60

appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order after serving notice to all the parties herein. 1^st and the 2^nd respondents may also explore the possibility of assigning alternate lands to the petitioners in case the 3^rd and 4^th respondents are assigned the land in question.

¶61

44.In view of the above observation, the writ petition is disposed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶62

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Ccc)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ia/kkd
To
1.The Land Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Sub Collector,
Maduramthakam Division.
+1cc to Mr..V.Chandrakanthan, Advocate SR.No.73424
+1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 74442
+1cc to Mr.K.P.Palaniappan, Advocate SR.No. 73423
(19/12/2018)
W.P.No.15386 of 2008
ASK(28/11/2018)

¶63

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

Mrs. Amirtham v. the Land Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Amirtham v. the Land Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Swathi Corporation Vs the Special Commissioner and

R.V.S. Educational Trust Vs the Secretary to Government

M/S.Roshini Foods Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Dugar Housing Developments Vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt

M/S.Infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S.Infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs Union of India