Dismissed

Tmt.Mishez Avari v. the Principal Secretary and

Madras HC3 Dec 2021WP/14046/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petition challenging rejection of land assignment claim. Court held petitioners ineligible due to family ownership of adjacent land and statutory ban in hill areas, directing surrender of possession.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to handover vacant possession of Survey No.2379/6 and 10 within four weeks.

Tmt.Mishez Avari Vs the Principal Secretary and — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.NO.14046 OF 2012 AND M.P.NO.3 OF 2012 AND W.M.P.NO.14055 OF 2017

¶6

Mishez Avari

¶7

Shezharin Avari ... Petitioners

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration,

¶10

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶13

The Tahsildhar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:-

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the second respondent dated 13.04.2006 bearing No.NAKA/11351/04/D1 as confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 24.02.2011 bearing No.F3/28124/2001 and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to assign the lands in Survey No.2379/6 measuring 1.16.0 hectares and survey No.2379/10 measuring 1.04.0 hectares of Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul district to the petitioners respectively on collection of market value.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiritharan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the second respondent dated 13.04.2006 bearing No.NAKA/11351/04/D1 as confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 24.02.2011 bearing No.F3/28124/2001 and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to assign the lands in Survey No.2379/6 measuring 1.16.0 hectares and survey No.2379/10 measuring 1.04.0 hectares of Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul district to the petitioners respectively on collection of market value.

¶20

The land comprised in Survey No.2379/6, ad-measuring 1.16.0 hectares and Survey No.2379/10, ad-measuring 1.04.01 hectares of Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul district was originally assigned to the petitioners by the Special Tahsildhar, dated 27.12.1980 vide No.DKT.186/90 and by another proceeding in DKT.187/90. However, the said assignment was cancelled by an order dated 29.10.1992 for the reason that they have violated the condition assignment. The said order was also confirmed by the second respondent by an order dated 31.12.1994. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before the first respondent and it was dismissed by an order dated 06.11.1996. All the orders were under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.413 of 1997 and W.P.No.19138 of 1996. This Court by an order dated 09.10.2001, disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.413 of 1997 with the observation that while confirming the order passed by the first respondent and leaving it upon to the first petitioner herein to approach the second respondent to seek for assignment on collection of market value by way of consideration, it is open to the second respondent to decide as to the value of the year is to be applied in the event of the second respondent deciding to grant the assignment in favour of the first petitioner herein. Further observed that the amount deposited by the first petitioner, while pending the writ petition, shall be credit to in the event of any assignment made in favour of the first petitioner herein. The assignment of the subject land was cancelled due to the reason that the father of the first petitioner owned certain lands and by virtue of such ownership by the father of the first petitioner, the same acted as de-classification for the assignment of subject property.

¶21

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

¶22

In the light of the said order, this Court passed order in W.P.No.19138 of 1996, dated 23.01.2004 and directed the second petitioner herein to approach the second respondent and seek for assignment of subject land after collection of market value. Accordingly, the petitioners made applications for assignment of subject land before the second respondent and by an order dated 13.04.2006, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed revision before the first respondent and the first respondent also confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by an order dated 24.02.2011. The first respondent also reasoned that there is a ban for land assignment in hill areas, as per G.O.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989.

¶23

Insofar as the amount deposited by the petitioners is concerned, the appellants have benefited with more profit than the amount spent by them towards reclamation of the lands in question.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court specifically directed the petitioners to make an application for assignment of land and payment of market value and in fact, directed the second respondent to adjust to credit the amount which was deposited by the petitioners before this Court, even then the respondents failed to consider for assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioners. This Court also observed that the subject land has been developed by the petitioners at a huge cost and there is justification for them to seek a direction for assignment of the land at market price.

¶25

The G.O.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989 even was in force when the orders were passed on 06.11.1996 by the first respondent and the orders by this Court in W.P.No.413 of 1997 and W.P.No.19138 of 1996. He further submitted that the assignment of land is governed by the provisions of the Revenue Standing Order which has a statutory force. The Revenue Standing Order 15 speaks about the assignment of land and such assignment cannot be taken away by referring to a ban in assignment in hill areas.

¶26

The second respondent filed counter on behalf of all the respondents and Mr.V.Jeevagiritharan, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the family members of the petitioners have already owned land ad-measuring 4.67.0 hectares adjacent to the subject land. Therefore, they are not eligible for assignment of any land which is meant for welfare of landless poor. It was brought to the notice of the respondents that the assignment of patta were duly cancelled by the third respondent. Therefore, the administration cannot be held

¶27

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

¶28

responsible for all the efforts said to have been taken by the petitioners, as basically they are not eligible for getting the assignment. They have also no right on the above said land.

¶29

While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the second

¶30

respondent has stated valid reasons that the petitioners obtained assignment of land suppressing the fact that they owned land adjacent to the assignment land to an extent of 4.67.0 hectares. They have got more income through the assigned land than the amount spent towards development of the said land. There is no provisions in the Revenue Standing Order to regularize the illegal assignment and also the petitioners have no legal rights to claim any assignment of land on payment of market value. That apart, there is a ban for assignment of land in hill areas as per G.O.No.1168, dated 25.07.1989.

¶31

Heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jeevagiritharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioners are daughter and mother. The first petitioner is the daughter of the second petitioner. Both were initially assigned the subject land in Survey No.2379/6, admeasuring 1.16.0 hectares and Survey No.2379/10, ad-measuring 1.04.01 hectares of Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul district, by the Special Tahsildhar, dated 27.12.1980 vide No.DKT.186/90 and by another proceeding DKT.187/90. The assignments of subject land were subsequently cancelled by an order dated 29.10.1992 for the reason that the first petitioner's father and the husband of the second petitioner owned land ad-measuring 4.67.0 hectares of patta land adjacent to the subject land at Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. The cancellation of assignment was also confirmed by the second respondent and first respondent herein by the orders dated 31.12.1994 and 06.11.1996. Both the petitioners had challenged the cancellation of assignment before this Court in W.P.No.413 of 1997 and W.P.No.19138 of 1996.

¶33

As stated supra, this Court while confirming the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners were given liberty to approach the second respondent for assignment of land at market value. The petitioners suppressed the fact that the first petitioner's father and husband of the second petitioner owned patta land adjacent to the assignment land and obtained assignment in their favour. The said cancellation of assignment confirmed up to this Court. That apart, there is a ban for assignment land in the hill areas as per G.O.No.1168, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1989, is as follows,

¶34

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

¶35

"4) ePyfpup khtl;l Ml;rpau; kw;Wk; epy epu;thf Mizahpd; gupe;Jiufis muR ed;F guprPypj;J. ePyfpup khtl;lk; cs;sPl;L khepyj;jpy; cs;s midj;J kiyg;gpunjr';fspYk;. kz; mupg;g[ kw;Wk; epyr;rupt[ nghd;w ,aw;if ,lu;ghLfs; Vw;glhky; jLj;J Rw;Wg;g[wr; R{Hiy ghJfhg;gJk;. fhLfisg; ghJfhg;gJk; jw;nghJ kpft[k; mtrpak; vd;W muR fUJfpd;wJ/ vdnt. khepyj;jpYs;s midj;J kiyg;gpunjr';fspYk; tptrhaj;jpw;F epy xg;gil tH';Ftij muR ,tz; jil tpjpf;fpwJ/

¶36

jw;nghJs;s Mf;fpukz';fs; vit vit tud;Kiwg;gLj;jg;gl ntz;oait. vit vit mfw;wg;gl ntz;oait vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk;. (vjpu; fhyj;jpy; Mf;fpukz';fs; muR g[wk;nghf;Ffspy; Vw;glhJ ghJfhf;ft[k; tHptiffisa[k;) jdpahh; v!;nll;fs; murpd; epy';fis kpFe;j mstpy; Mf;fpukpj;Js;sJ Fwpj;Jk; Ma;e;J muRf;F jf;f gupe;Jiufis bra;a cau; kl;lf;FG xd;W epakpf;fg;glt[s;sJ/ cah; kl;lf;FGtpd; gupe;Jiuia Ma;t[ bra;J jf;f Miz gpd;dh; btspaplg;gLk;/ vdnt khepyj;jpYs;s midj;J kiy gFjpfspYk; tptrhaj;jpw;F xg;gil tH';Ftjw;Fk;. Mf;fpukz';fs; tud;Kiwg;gLj;Jtjw;Fk; cldoahf jil tpjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/"

¶37

Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled for any assignment of land.

¶38

Insofar as the expenditure incurred by them for development of the subject land is concerned, as rightly observed by the respondents that from the year 1980 onwards, the petitioners are enjoying the subject land and the agricultural produces such as costly vegetables are produced by them and they are benefited by huge profit from the subject land.

¶39

Therefore, the amount spent by them for development of subject land is very meager. Likewise, insofar as the sum of Rs.40.000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) deposited by them as directed by this Court by way of interim direction also can be adjusted towards the profit from the subject land.

¶40

The Revenue Standing Order 15 speaks about the assignment of land at free of costs and payment of value of the land. At the same time, the land shall be assigned only in favour of the landless poor. The eligibility of assignment of land is the main criteria for assignment of land and the assignment shall be granted only to landless poor. Admittedly, the petitioners family owned land adjacent to the subject land to an extent of 4.67.0 hectares. That apart, its is not a matter of right, seeking assignment of land under the Revenue Standing Order 15. In fact, the original assignment of the subject land were cancelled only for the reason that their family members

¶41

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

¶42

possessed patta land adjacent to the assigned land. Therefore, they are not entitled for any assignment and the respondents rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the respondents.

¶43

It is pertinant to note that the assignments were cancelled by an order dated 29.10.1992 and the same was confirmed by the second respondent and first respondent on 31.12.1994 and 06.11.1996. The petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.No.413 of 1997 and W.P.No.19138 of 1996 and both the writ petitions came to be dismissed by the orders dated 09.10.2001 and 23.01.2004 respectively. However, the respondents did not take any steps to recover the subject lands from the petitioners.

¶44

Considering the above, the petitioners are directed to handover the vacant possession of the land comprised in Survey No.2379/6, ad-measuring 1.16.0 hectares and Survey No.2379/10, ad-measuring 1.04.01 hectares of Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul district, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to recover the subject land from the petitioners.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶50

¶51

¶52

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner

¶53

of Land Administrator, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶54

The District Revenue Officer,

¶55

Dindigul District.

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶57

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

¶58

The Tahsildhar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶59

+1cc to Mr.P.Solomon Francis, Advocate, S.R.No.63588

¶60

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.Nos.64341 & 64368

¶61

W.P.NO.14046 OF 2012 AND M.P.NO.3 OF 2012 AND

¶62

W.M.P.NO.14055 OF 2017

¶63

CP(CO) PBS/21/12/2021

¶64

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

Tmt.Mishez Avari v. the Principal Secretary and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Mishez Avari v. the Principal Secretary and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palanisamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Subramaniam, Vs The District Collector

M/S.v.Rangaswamy Naidu Vs State of T.N., Rep.by Secy.

R.Mythili Vs Purva Garg

V.Chandrasekaran Vs Senthil Kumar

Saraswathy Ammal, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu