The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kumudha seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter. The Court held the petitioner had no title to the poromboke land and rejected the claim due to inordinate delay in applying for assistance after the land acquisition in 1982.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs to the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.NO.22041 OF 2004
Kumudha
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent in Letter No.028669/G9/G91/W.P.No.32436/89-1 dated 3.12.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner's daughter S.Valarmathi on compassisonate ground for having taken over the lands belonging to her family which was their only source of livelihood.
The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the 1st respondent in Letter No.028669/G9/G91/W.P.No.32436/89-1 dated 3.12.2003 and to direct the respondents to provide employment to her daughter S.Valarmathi on compassionate ground, in lieu of acquisition of her lands for construction of Mettur Thermal Power Station.
3.1 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the land is a Government Poromboke land assigned to its original owner and therefore it cannot be transferred to some other persons. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased this property under an unregistered sale deed and moreover, the patta that stood in her name was cancelled. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit, as the scheme provides employment only to the patta-holders and not to poromboke land occupants.
3.2 The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the District Collector, Salem, in his proceedings dated 07.12.1982 have informed that on account of acquisition of their lands, the aggrieved persons who seek employment, can submit their application before 18.12.1982, whereas the petitioner has submitted her representations only on 05.01.1996 and 16.05.1997. Therefore, in view of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to make her representation to the first respondent, her claim seeking employment to her daughter came to be rejected.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment for acquisition of poromboke land purchased under an unregistered deed where the patta title was cancelled.
Whether inordinate delay of 14 years in making representation after acquisition bars relief in a writ petition.
Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of employment claim should be allowed.
Kumudha
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Superintendening Engineer (Civil)
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
