Dismissed

Ramakrishnan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC13 Dec 2022WP/32542/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders cancelling their assignment to 3 cents of house site under the Free House Site Scheme for Landless Poor due to failure to construct within 12 months. The court held the cancellation valid as allottees had alternative housing and found no ground to interfere, dismissing the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramakrishnan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.32542 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.28200 & 38459 of 2016

¶8

1.Ramakrishnan

¶9

2.Amsaveni

¶10

3.Kuppusamy

¶11

4.T.Sivalingam

¶12

5.P.Maruthappan

¶13

6.K.P.Kolandai

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

¶16

1.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶17

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶18

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.

¶19

4.The Tahsildar, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶20

5.The Executive Officer, Palacode Special Grade Panchayat, Dharmapuri – 636 808.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

1/16

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶25

Prayer :

¶26

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in proceedings in revision petition RC.No.G1/27563/2006 order dated 17.11.2015, quash the same.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Baskar

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the

¶31

records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in proceedings in revision petition RC.No.G1/27563/2006 order dated 17.11.2015, quash the same.

¶32

The petitioners herein are the original allottees or the legal heirs of

¶33

the original allottees. Under the scheme called “Free House Site Scheme for Landless Poor”, 3 cents of house site would be given to those who do not have even a house site to have a dwelling house. Such an assignment has been given to the allottees who are the petitioners herein or their legal heirs, sometime in 1980 by assignment order dated 29.01.1980.

¶34

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶36

Among other things, two important conditions imposed in the said

¶37

assignment order are relevant, which reads thus:

¶38

“(2) ,jDld; nrh;f;fg;gl;loUf;Fk; bc&l;a{ypy; fz;l tptuKk; mst[s;sJk;. Xiy Kjypaitfspdhy;-nky; XL K:oa my;yJ Tiu nghl;lJkhd-jhhpR nghl;lJkhd xU fl;olj;ij 19 k; // kP c apypUe;J MW-gd;dpuz;L khj fhyj;Jf;Fs; fl;o Kof;f ntz;Lk;/

¶39

(3) th!;jtkhd fl;olj;Jf;F Kd;Dk; gpd;Dk; moa[s;s ,lj;ijf; fhypahf tpl;L itf;fntz;Lk;/

¶40

(4) ic& bc&l;a{ypy; fz;l tptuKk; mst[Ks;s xU fl;olkhtJ. Kd;djhf mDkjp bgw;Wf; bfhz;L nkw;go tptuj;jpw;Fk; mstpw;Fk; gjpyhf ntnw tptuKk; mst[k; Vw;ghlhapUe;jhy; me;j tptuKk; mst[Ks;s xU fl;olkhtJ nkny fz;l fhyj;Jf;Fs; mndfkha;g; g{h;j;jpbra;J Kof;fg;glhtpl;lhYk;. (3) epge;jidapy;

¶41

Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgo th!;jtkhd fl;olj;jpd; Kd;Dk; gpd;Dk; moa[s;s fhypaplk; tplg;glhtpl;lhYk; mg;gog;gl;l xU fl;olk; fl;o gpw;ghL iftplg;gl;lhYk;. mjhtJ xU tUc& fhyk; tiuapy; mDgtpf;fhky; gGjhd

¶42

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶44

epiyikapUf;Fk;go tplg;gl;lhYk;. mjpy; clnd kWgoa[k; gpuntrpj;J. me;j kidiaahtJ. me;j kidiaa[k; fl;olj;ija[khtJ RthjPdg;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s murh';fj;jhUf;Fg; ghj;jpaij cz;L; mg;nghJ. me;j epyj;jpd; nkypUf;Fk;. ve;j fl;ol';fSf;fhft[k; my;yJ m';nf bra;ag;gl;Ls;s ntnw ve;jr; rPh;jpUj;j';fSf;fhft[k; murh';fj;jhh; vt;tpj gpujpgyDk; bfhLf;f cl;gl;lth;fshf khl;lhh;fs;/”

¶45

Accordingly the assignees should have constructed dwelling house as per the conditions imposed in the assignment order within the maximum period of 12 months.

¶46

If within the said period construction has not been made or if construction is made in violation of the frontage side back etc. as provided in Condition No.3 of the assignment order or if they have constructed and stopped the construction off way through and even if they have constructed the building but not residing in the said building for a period of more than one year those status were to be considered as violation of the conditions of assignment. In that case, the Government has got every right to cancel the assignment.

¶47

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶49

With these conditions, assignment order was passed as stated supra

¶50

to and in favour of these petitioners for allotment of house sites at Dharmapuri.

¶51

However for several years, no construction has been made by any of these allottees/assignees, therefore the respondents having inspected the spot concerned and after verifying that no construction has been made even upto 1999, steps have been taken to cancel the assignment, accordingly orders were passed by the 3^rd respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer on 12.04.2022 cancelling the assignment. As against the said order passed

¶52

by the Revenue Divisional Officer/3^rd respondent, the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2^nd respondent/District Revenue Officer, who also in turn by order dated 27.05.2022, confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶53

As against which, the petitioners preferred revision before the 1^st respondent who considering the order passed by the original authority as

¶54

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶56

well as the appellate authority, has given his reasons to confirm those orders by not interfering with the orders passed either by the original authority or the appellate authority and thereby the revision filed by the petitioners were rejected through the order dated 17.11.2015. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶57

Heard Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who would submit that, the petitioners are the original allottees, even though were allotted the house sites under Landless Poor Category to the extent of 3 cents for constructing dwelling house due to economical conditions they could not immediately construct the house, however subsequently they have put up construction and therefore it cannot be stated that they have violated the conditions imposed under the assignment order.

¶58

He would also submit that, before making the cancellation order, the petitioners should have been given a notice and after hearing them such a cancellation should have been made and without taking the petitioners into confidence by giving notice to them if the assignment is cancelled through the impugned order passed by the respective authorities, on the ground of

¶59

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶61

violation of principles of natural justice also the impugned orders would not stand in the legal scrutiny, therefore on these grounds the said orders are liable to be interfered with.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, as of now in all these plots which have been assigned, construction have already been made and therefore the same can be verified by the respondents and accordingly orders impugned hereby can be re-visited, he contended.

¶63

However Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by relying upon various averments made in the counter affidavit would submit that, insofar as the original assignees or some of the present petitioners who are the legal heirs of original assignees are concerned, all of them have alternative house sites or buildings for dwelling purposes. Therefore that is the probable reason for these people not to make any construction in the allotted site through the assignment orders for nearly about 20 years as the assignment order made in 1980 but till 1999 there was no construction made in the plots allotted to them.

¶64

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶66

As per Condition Nos.2 and 4 such a construction should have been made within a time frame i.e., 12 months maximum and even if the construction of houses have not been completed or construction was over but has been abandoned for more than one year by not using it for dwelling purposes, even then the Government will have a right to take away the land as well as the building for which even compensation would not be paid to the assignees for the half way construction made in this regard. Therefore, as per the condition Nos.2 and 4 of the assignment order only the respondents have acted upon by passing the order originally by the Revenue Divisional Officer subsequently in the appeal by the District Revenue Officer and in the revision by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government which are the impugned orders in this writ petition, therefore those orders since have been issued strictly in consonance with the assignment conditions, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with those orders, hence the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks dismissal of this writ petition.

¶67

I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed

¶68

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶70

before this Court.

¶71

In 1980 the assignment order has been issued by the respondents i.e. on 29.01.1980, for 20 years no such utilisation has been made and no construction has been put up by these petitioners or the original assignees.

¶72

Condition Nos.2 and 4 makes it very clear that, within the maximum of 12 months period, construction should have been completed, assuming that the construction started within the period but it was not completed with one year or construction is completed thereafter it was not utilised by the assignee for more than one year period even that will entitle the respondents to enter upon the property and take possession of the property by cancelling the assignment without giving any compensation for the construction made in this regard.

¶73

Even that kind of stringent conditions since have been issued in the assignment order which have been accepted by the petitioners or the original assignees, therefore within the period of one year or atleast after getting some extension from the respondents for a period of six months or

¶74

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶76

one year like that, they should have constructed and they should have put up construction for their own use.

¶77

Insofar as the scheme like the present one, under which the house sites are allotted to landless poor, it is only to alleviate the poor people from the poverty line as they will not be in a position to have a dwelling house in the locality where they want to reside, therefore the Government envisaged the scheme and allotting 3 cents to each of the eligible poor people for constructing dwelling house.

¶78

When such an allotment is made, the very purpose of allotment is to immediately construct the dwelling house within the economic capacity of the assignee and must utilise the land and building. When such an assignment is given even after 10 years or 12 years or 20 years in the present case, if no construction has been made, it makes clear that the assignees were not in actual requirement to have a dwelling house to be constructed in the assigned land, since they might have alternative house sites or buildings or dwelling house.

¶79

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶81

Therefore, this position in fact has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents where instances have been stated that one of the petitioner i.e. Maruthappan S/o.Pandurangan, who was not the original assignee, who was in the Town Panchayat, Palacode, has got his own house in Kamatchiamman Koil Street, Dharmapuri itself. Like that one K.P.Kolandai, who was working as Junior Assistant of Palacode Town Panchayat also not utilised the land for the purpose it was assigned. Moreover, he has got house of his own at D.No.89/90 at Manthri Gounder Street, Palacode, like that so many instances have been given in respect of these petitioners as they have their own houses for the dwelling purpose.

¶82

Probably this might have been the reason for these assignees not to put up construction immediately and even for two decades, therefore it is a clear violation of Condition Nos.2 and 4 of the assignment order referred to above and therefore, in such violation the respondents have not at all explained to cancel the assignment and therefore, in this regard the question of giving any further notice and to hear the petitioners or the original assignees before making the cancellation does not arise.

¶83

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶85

It is the not the case of the petitioners that, they have constructed

¶86

the house i.e. the dwelling house in the allotted plots within a period of 12 months as per the Condition No.2 or even there is no case of the petitioners that they have constructed the houses within a span of few years from the date of assignment.

¶87

When that being the position, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have not been given notices and no enquiry has been conducted by giving notices to the petitioners as that kind of procedure if at all to be adopted by the respondents even before cancellation of the assignment that would be nothing but an empty formality, therefore for not following such empty formality, this Court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the respondents.

¶88

In the revision order passed by the 1^st respondent, he has stated the following and rejected the revision filed by the petitioners.

¶89

“The revision petitioners were assigned land on 31.01.1980 along with others for house-site purpose. Two of the assignees had later returned the assigned land to the Government. It is seen that all these assignees were either employees of the local

¶90

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶92

body or of the Government. Moreover, if they had really needed the land for building houses as claimed by them, they should have built permanent structures and moved their residence to these plots, within a reasonable short period of time. The revision petitioners had not constructed permanent structures nor were they residing in the assigned lands till the year 1999. When the Palacode Panchayat initiated action to resume and reclassify the assigned land as Government poramboke nearly twenty years after the original assignment was made, the revision petitioners had approached the District Munsif Court and had taken further legal proceedings in the High Court of Madras. The assignees have not produced any proof that they had constructed permanent houses on the assigned land or that they were residing in the assigned land till the year 1999. Moreover, the present enquiry reveals that eight of them own houses in other places and they have either returned their patta, have expired, are living elsewhere or have sold their plot to someone else. Thus, there is no case to restore the pattas in the names of the original assignees when they have neither used the assigned land to construct their own house and own residential houses in other locations. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.G1/4280/2001 dated 20.02.2003, cancelling the assignment issued to the revision petitioners and the orders of the District Revenue Officer,

¶93

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶95

Dharmapuri in proceedings No. 2/4230/2002 dated 31.05.2006, confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly I uphold the orders of the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri in proceedings No. 2/4230/2022 dated 31.05.2006 and the revision petitions filed by the revision petitioners are dismissed as devoid of merits.”

¶96

Having perusal of these orders passed by the original authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, this Court satisfies that there are every justification on the part of the respondents in cancelling the assignment given in favour of the petitioners or the original assignees or the legal heirs of the original assignees and absolutely there is no ground to interfere with those orders passed by these authorities which are impugned herein.

¶97

For all these reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the impugned orders accordingly, this Writ Petition fails, hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶98

13.12.2022

¶99

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶101

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Sgl

¶102

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

¶104

¶105

1.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶106

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶107

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.

¶108

4.The Tahsildar, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶109

5.The Executive Officer, Palacode Special Grade Panchayat, Dharmapuri – 636 808.

¶110

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.32542 of 2016

13.12.2022

17/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ramakrishnan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramakrishnan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Jayaraman Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Daisy Vs Deputy Inspector General of Registration

V.B.R.Menon,B.E(Mech),,Mba(Iima),Llb, Vs The Sub Registrar

Rt Eti Environtech Private Limited, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Kumarammal Vs Rajamani

Tamilarasan Vs The Secretary to Government