Dismissed

The Commissioner of Land Administration v. Xavier.a

Madras HC27 Mar 2023WA(MD)/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by Government revenue officials challenging a writ order directing them to issue patta and assignment to a petitioner for land in Trichy District following a 20-year delay caused by revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal dismissed; District Revenue Officer directed to serve demand notice on respondent with one month to pay; assignment order to be issued within 15 days of payment.

The Commissioner of Land Administration Vs Xavier.a — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.3505 of 2023

¶7

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶8

2.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶9

3.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶11

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruverambur, Trichy District. :Appellants/Respondents

¶12

.vs.

¶13

A.Xavier : Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶14

1/9

¶15

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 05.08.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.7129 of 2022 thereby allowing this writ appeal.

¶17

For Appellants	:Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General
	Assisted by
	Mr.A.Baskaran
	Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent	:Mr.B.Saravanan for D.Kirubakaran

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶20

The appeal is at the instance of the Government.

¶21

Challenge is to the order of the writ Court issuing a writ of

¶22

mandamus directing the respondents to implement the order of the first respondent, dated 29.10.2001 and to issue patta to the petitioner for the land in Survey No.35/10 measuring 4800 sq.ft in Kumbakkudy Village, Trichy District in terms of the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 05.01.2018 within a time frame.

¶23

2/9

¶24

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶25

This writ petition was resisted on the ground that several years have passed and the value fixed in the year 2009 cannot be the basis for directing the conveyance in the year 2022. The undisputed facts are as follows:-

¶26

Several persons were granted assignment free of cost and since they had sold the property contrary to the terms of assignment in the year 1991. The assignments were cancelled. The cancellation of the assignment in favour of the 1^st respondent was challenged before the first respondent herein. Even when the appeal was pending, the purchaser had sold the property to the respondent on 04.03.1998. Finally, the appeal was disposed of by the first appellant on 29.10.2001 upholding the cancellation. However, since construction has been put up in most of the assigned lands, the Commissioner, Land Administration felt that it may not be appropriate to cancel the assignments, therefore, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to issue free house-site patta to those purchasers or those of the persons who are in possession, if they are qualified and those

¶27

3/9

¶28

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶29

who are not qualified for free housesite patta, the Government to collect the double the market value of the land and grant assignment. Though this order was passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration in the year 2001, the District Revenue Officer did not take any follow up action.

¶30

Several representations were made to the Commissioner, Land Administration also. The Commissioner, Land Administration by his letter dated 23.02.2007 required the District Collector to do the needful for implementation of the orders passed in the year 2001. After the said nudge by the Commissioner Land Administration, the Revenue Authorities, Trichirappalli District acted and fixed the value of the land on 19.09.2009 at Rs.73/- per sq.ft.

¶31

Pursuant to the said fixation, letters were obtained from the persons, who were in occupation of the land signifying the acceptance of the market price and their consent for payment of the same. These letters were obtained during February 2013. It appears that thereafter, sanction was sought for from the Commissioner of Land Administration for assignment. The Commissioner of Land Administration by his letter

¶32

4/9

¶33

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶34

dated 02.09.2015 informed the District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli that assignment can be made on the basis of the provisions of the Revenue Standing Orders and wherever the assignment have to be made by the Commissioner, Land Administration, proposals may be sent to the Commissioner, Land Administration.

¶35

Despite such letters, the assignments were not made and the beneficiaries were made to run from pillar to post. With this background, the District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli on 05.01.2018 directed the Revenue Tahsildar and Sub-Collector, Trichirappalli to assign the lands upon receipt of two times the market value of the property. List of beneficiaries was also enclosed to that letter.

¶36

This is received by the District Revenue Officer on 30.01.2019. However, since no assignments were made and people were asked to appear before the Tahsildar on various dates, the petitioner had come up with this petition.

¶37

The writ Court had rightly concluded that the entire delay had occurred due to the inaction of the revenue officials. Despite the

¶38

5/9

¶39

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶40

Commissioner, Land Administration having directed the fixation of market price in the year 2001, the same was done only in the year 2009 after 8 years, that too, after several reminders by the Commissioner of Land Administration. Though the market price was fixed on 19.09.2009, no steps were taken by the District Administration to collect the money from the persons, who were in possession of the land.

¶41

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that the assignee never attempted to pay the money.

¶42

A person cannot pay the money in a Government Account just like that. The details of account will have to be informed to the assignee and appropriate orders should be passed. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the assignee did not come forward to pay the money cannot be accepted.

¶43

After having concluded that the Revenue Department alone is responsible for the delay, the learned Judge directed the assignees to pay 4% interest of the amount from 01.09.2009. This order is now under challenge.

¶44

6/9

¶45

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶46

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that

¶47

the rate of interest is very very less. We think that the writ Court was in error directing the assignee to pay the interest and on the other hand, the writ Court should have directed recovery of the loss from the Revenue Officials, who had delayed the matter for over 20 years.

¶48

Since the assignee is not on appeal, we do not propose to alter

¶49

the order of the writ Court. Though we find that the order of the Writ Court works certain injustice to the proposed assignees and ignores the misdeeds of the Revenue Department of Trichirappalli District. The writ appeal is dismissed. The District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli is directed to serve the demand on the respondent indicating the amount to be paid as per the order of the writ Court, for the property in his occupation, giving him a months' time to pay. The competent authority will issue an order of assignment within fifteen days from the date of such payment made by the assignees. If there is any breach of time limit, it will be viewed seriously, unlike in the past. This order will applicable only to those persons who are cited as beneficiaries before the Commissioner of Land Administration.

¶50

7/9

¶51

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶52

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶53

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

[R.S.M.,J.] & [L.V.G.,J.] 27.03.2023

¶55

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No am

¶56

8/9

¶57

W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶58

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. AND L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶59

¶60

0RDER MADE IN W.A(MD)No.310 of 2023

¶61

27.03.2023

¶62

9/9

The Commissioner of Land Administration v. Xavier.a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Land Administration v. Xavier.a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Collector, Vs v. Murugesan

Arumuga Nainaar Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing)

Renuka Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

R.Elavarasan, Vs Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S.

Subramanian .v Vs The District Collector

Dhandapani. T Vs The District Collector