Allowed

A. Ragunathan(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC16 Jun 2022WP(MD)/1430/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the imputed reclassification of land as Shri Sannasi Andavar Kovil Poramboku by the District Revenue Officer, holding the Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction and the injunction was void where the original assignment was cancelled, yet confirmed the cancellation portion.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the reclassification and prohibiting injunction was set aside; the order cancelling assignment favoring private respondents was confirmed.

A. Ragunathan(Died), Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1430 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.1430 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

A.Ragunathan (Died)

1.Tamilarasi

2.R.Karthick

(P1 and P2 are substituted, vide Court order, dated 08.06.2022, in W.M.P.(MD)No.1958 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.1430 of 2012)

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs .

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer and Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

4.Manoharan 5.Chidambaram 6.Gurusamy 7.Rathinam 8.Mahalingam 9.Ashok ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.P2/52247/2011, dated 14.12.2011 and to quash the conclusion portion in the impugned order in which injunction order has been granted by the 1^st respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R4 to R9 : No appearance

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.1430 of 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent in which certain adverse observations were made as against the writ petitioner.

¶20

2.According to the writ petitioner his family is in possession of Survey No.620 for so many years. However, the said survey number was sub divided and assignment patta was granted in favour of those persons. Hence, he challenged the order of assignment before the first respondent.

¶21

3.The first respondent has chosen to cancel the order of assignment issued in favour of the private respondents in the writ petition. While cancelling the order of assessment, the first respondent has proceeded to reclassify the land as Shri Sannasi Andavar Kovil Poramboku without there being any request from any one of the parties. The first respondent has further proceeded to grant an injunction order as against the writ petition that he should not disturb the possession of the private respondents.

¶22

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that when the land was originally classified as Grama Natham, without any representation from any one of the parties, the first respondent was not called upon to reclassify the land as Shri Sannasi Andavar Kovil Poramboku. That apart, after cancelling the assignment order in favour of the private respondents, the first respondent has virtually conferred assignment in favour of the private respondents. Though the respondents 4 to 8 is represented through a Counsel, there is no representation for the respondents 4 to 8.

¶23

5.Despite notice there is no representation on the side of the respondents. It can be seen from the records that the private respondents has not challenged the cancel of assignment order that was made in their favour. It is a settled possession of law, then the power to reclassify the land lies only with the Commissioner of Land Administration and DRO has no power at all to reclassify Grama Natham as Shri Sannasi Andavar Kovil Poramboku. Hence, the first respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever to reclassify the same. That apart, once an order of assignment is cancelled, thereafter, there cannot be an order in favour of the persons whose assignment order has been cancelled.

¶24

6.In view of the above said discussion, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that a reclassification has been effected and an order of prohibition has been passed against the writ petitioner. In respect of the other portion of the order namely, cancelling assignment order in favour of the private respondents is concerned, it is confirmed.

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.1430 of 2012

¶28

7.The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶34

¶35

1.The District Revenue Officer & Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

¶36

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ramanathapuram.

3.The Tahsildar,

Paramakudi,

Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.PT.S.NARNDRAVASAN, Advocate ( SR-26234[F] dated 16/06/2022 )

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-26570[F] dated 17/06/2022 )

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.1430 of 2012 16.06.2022

¶44

RS (27.06.2022) 3P-6C

¶45

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

¶46

3/3

A. Ragunathan(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ragunathan(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

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

S. Karuppiah, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Perumal Vs the Land Commissioner

R.J.K. Thilak, Vs the Secretary to Government

Muthulakshmi, Vs the District Collector

A.T. Pasupathy, Vs the Inspector General of

K.Thangamoni Vs the State of Tamil Nadu