Dismissed

K.Madhavan, v. The Principal Secretary cum

Madras HC6 Jun 2023WP/16612/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed two Writ Petitions challenging a notice issued to stop unauthorized tree cutting on government-resumed land. The Court held that the notice was lawful as the land was resumed, rendering subsequent purchasers' claims invalid, irrespective of a pending writ petition regarding the resumption order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions closed with no costs awarded.

K.Madhavan, Vs The Principal Secretary cum — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.Nos.1, 2, 1 & 2 of 2015

¶9

W.P.No.16612 of 2015:

¶10

1.K.Madhavan

¶11

2.Sariga

¶12

3.K.M.Hari

¶13

4.K.Mukundan

¶14

5.Narayanan

¶15

6.Vikraman ... Petitioners

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner of Land Administration

¶18

Chepauk, Chennai.

¶19

2.The District Collector Thiruvallur.

¶20

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri.

¶21

Page 1 of 10

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶24

4.The Tahsildar

¶25

Gummidipoondi.

¶26

5.The Revenue Inspector Matharpakkam Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶27

6.The Village Administrative Officer Pondavakkam Village Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶28

7.The District Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District.

¶29

8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶30

9.The Sub-Inspector of Police Pathirvedu

¶31

Gummidipoondi Taluk.

¶32

10.C.Ravichandran

¶33

11.The Forest Range Officer Gummidipoondi Range Madharpakkam Range Madharpakkam.

¶34

... Respondents

¶35

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the RDO, Ponneri in Na.Ka.No.1555/15B1, dated 29.05.2015 and quash the same is illegal, ultra-virus and unconstitutional.

¶36

Page 2 of 10

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶39

W.P.No.17592 of 2015:

¶40

1.K.Madhavan

¶41

2.Sariga

¶42

3.K.M.Hari

¶43

4.K.Mukundan

¶44

5.Narayanan

¶45

6.Vikraman

¶46

... Petitioners

¶47

Vs.

¶48

1.The Principal Secretary - Cum - Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,

¶49

Chennai – 600 005.

¶50

2.The District Collector Thiruvallur.

¶51

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri.

¶52

4.C.Ravichandran

¶53

... Respondents

¶54

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice of the 3 rd respondent R.C.1555/2015/A.2 dated 29.05.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1 st respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 4.

¶55

Page 3 of 10

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶58

For Petitioners	: Ms.S.Pavithrashini For Mr.V.Manohar (in 2WPs)
For R1 to R9 & R11	: Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader (in W.P.No.16612 of 2015)
For R1 to R3	: Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader (in W.P.No.17592 of 2015)
For R10	: Mr.G.Justin (in W.P.No.16612 of 2015)
For R4	: Mr.G.Justin (in W.P.No.17592of 2015)

¶59

COMMON ORDER

¶60

The notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri

¶61

instructing the petitioners to stop the unauthorised cutting of trees standing on the lands till the disposal of the W.P.No.7900 of 2011 is under challenge

¶62

in these writ petitions.

¶63

The impugned notice was issued pursuant to the fact that the

¶64

petitioners have indulged in unauthorised cutting of the trees in question in

¶65

the land which was resumed by the Government.

¶66

Page 4 of 10

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶69

The subject land was originally assigned in favour of the landless

¶70

poor Adi Dravidar community people. It was a conditional assignment made by the Government that the assignees cannot alienate the Government property in favour of any person. In violation of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the original assignees sold the property in favour of the writ petitioners and therefore, the purchase of the property itself was found to be illegal and in violation of the conditions imposed in the assignment order.

¶71

In view of the fact that conditional assignment was violated, the

¶72

Government has initiated action to cancel the assignment and to resume the land.

¶73

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

¶74

the official respondents relying on the counter affidavit made a submission that the assignment in respect of the disputed lands were cancelled and the subject lands were resumed by the Government through proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 21.08.2009.

¶75

Page 5 of 10

¶76

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

¶77

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶78

Once the lands assigned were resumed by the Government, the said

¶79

lands vest with the Government and the subsequent purchasers have no right to claim ownership or otherwise. The Subsequent purchasers cannot enjoy the usufruct or take possession of the land, since the land was already resumed by the Government. The present writ petitions are filed consequent to the writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7900 of 2011 challenging the order cancelling the assignment and resuming the land. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioners have made an attempt to cut the trees in the property and therefore, the competent authorities issued impugned notice asking the petitioners not to cut the trees unauthorisedly, since the writ petition was pending.

¶80

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that an order of status quo was granted by this Court in W.P.No.7900 of 2011 and therefore, the petitioners are empowered to enter into the property.

¶81

This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of status quo

¶82

granted, at no circumstances be allowed to misinterpret. The authorities have issued the impugned notice mainly on the ground that the petitioners have

¶83

Page 6 of 10

¶84

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

¶85

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶86

attempted to cut the trees unauthorisdely. The trees in the subject property are

¶87

to be protected, since the lands are already resumed by the Government and

¶88

the order of resumption is under challenge in the W.P.No.7900 of 2011. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the notice issued by the respondents preventing the petitioners from cutting the trees unauthorisedly.

¶89

It is not in dispute that the authorities competent passed an order

¶90

resuming the land on the ground that the conditions stipulated in the assignment had been violated by the original assignees. Therefore, the subsequent purchasers of the original assignees also have no right over the property, since the conditional assignment had been violated and the Government has resumed the property. In view of the fact that the impugned notice has been issued preventing the writ petitioners from cutting the trees in an unauthorised manner, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the notice issued and the interpretation of the status quo orders offered by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

¶91

Page 7 of 10

¶92

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

¶93

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶94

10. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶95

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶96

06.06.2023

¶97

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶98

¶99

1.The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner of Land Administration

¶100

Chepauk, Chennai.

¶101

2.The District Collector Thiruvallur.

¶102

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri.

¶103

4.The Tahsildar Gummidipoondi.

¶104

5.The Revenue Inspector Matharpakkam Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶105

6.The Village Administrative Officer Pondavakkam Village Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶106

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

¶107

Page 8 of 10

¶108

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶109

7.The District Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District.

¶110

8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶111

9.The Sub-Inspector of Police Pathirvedu Gummidipoondi Taluk.

¶112

10.The Forest Range Officer Gummidipoondi Range Madharpakkam Range Madharpakkam.

¶113

Page 9 of 10

¶114

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

¶115

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶116

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶117

Jeni

¶118

W.P.Nos.16612 & 17592 of 2015

¶119

06.06.2023

¶120

Page 10 of 10

¶121

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

K.Madhavan, v. The Principal Secretary cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhavan, v. The Principal Secretary cum

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

K.Rajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector General of

S.Alagammai Vs the State

M.Dhanapal Vs the Secretary

K.Revathi, Vs The Sub Registrar

Tirougnanasamandamourtty Selva Vs The Union of India

G.Subburaj, Vs The Inspector General