Disposed

Maniyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Sept 2023WP/24147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that petitioners had not exhausted their alternative remedy as they had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer. The court directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry and decide the issue on merits within three months before closing the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to conduct an enquiry and decide the petitioners' objections on merits within three months.

Maniyan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.23123, 23131, 23132, 23136, 23140, 23142 and 23143 of 2022

¶8

W.P.No.24147 of 2022

Mr.Maniyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Rep. by Principal Secretary of Land Administration,

¶14

Land Administration Department,

¶15

2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶16

Chennai – 600 005.

¶17

2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶18

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶19

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶20

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶21

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶22

Page 1 of 11

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶25

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶26

5.The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

6.Thiru.R.Durai

7.Thiru Dhevaraj

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent herein in his proceedings in NI.Mu.A2/ 2659 / 2020 dated 28.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners property measuring an extent of 2 Acres 99 Cents Situated at S.No.77/ 2B2, 77/1D, 77/3B, 80/1G, 80/3 and 81/6 Pusappadi Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶31

W.P.No.24158 of 2022

¶32

Mr.Sakthivel ... Petitioner

¶33

Vs.

¶34

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶35

2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate,

¶36

Page 2 of 11

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶39

Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶40

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶41

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶42

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶43

5.The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

¶44

6.Thiru.R.Durai

¶45

7.Thiru Dhevaraj

¶46

... Respondents

¶47

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent herein in his proceedings in NI.Mu.A2/ 2659 / 2020 dated 28.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners property measuring an extent of 3 Acres 7 ½ Cents Situated at S.No.77/1E,77/2A, 77/2B1, 77/3A, 80/1E, 80/1F, 81/5 and 80/1D Pusappadi Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶48

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

¶49

Page 3 of 11

¶50

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶51

W.P.No.24162 of 2022

Mr.Subramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶56

2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶57

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶58

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶59

5.The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

¶60

6.Thiru.R.Durai

¶61

7.Thiru Dhevaraj

¶62

... Respondents

¶63

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating

¶64

Page 4 of 11

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶67

to the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent herein in his proceedings in NI.Mu.A2/ 2659 / 2020 dated 28.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners property measuring an extent of 2 Acres 39 Cents Situated at S.No.77/1B, 81/3 and 80/1B Pusappadi Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶68

W.P.No.24165 of 2022

¶69

Mrs.Sivappayi ... Petitioner Vs.

¶70

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶71

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶72

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶73

Page 5 of 11

¶74

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

¶75

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶76

5.The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

¶77

6.Thiru.R.Durai

¶78

7.Thiru Dhevaraj ... Respondents

¶79

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent herein in his proceedings in NI.Mu.A2/ 2659 / 2020 dated 28.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners property measuring an extent of 5 Acres 1 Cents Situated at S.No.79/1C, 79/2D and 79/4C Pusappadi Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶80

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Prakasam For R1 to R5 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader (in all W.P.s) For R6 & R7 : No appearance (in all W.P.s)

¶81

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶82

The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi is

¶83

sought to be quashed in the present writ petitions.

¶84

Page 6 of 11

¶85

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

¶86

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶87

The claim of the petitioners is that the said lands are not DC lands.

¶88

The petitioners states that they are not in occupation and enjoyment of the subject land for several years. The land was settled for valid consideration and therefore the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is perverse.

¶89

The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer reveals that the subject land has been alloted for depressed class community people. Therefore, a complaint was registered before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste Community and the Commission passed an order to conduct an enquiry. Based on the enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the subject land belonging to the Government was allotted for the welfare of the Adi dravida People. It is classified as 'Tarisu' and therefore, an order was passed to cancel the Patta erroneously, granted in favour other person and to restore the land for the benefit of the Adi Dravida Community people.

¶90

Such lands alloted for Adi Dravida people are to be assigned by

¶91

verifying the eligibility for the welfare scheme to provide land at free of cost for the upliftment of the scheduled castes community people. The landless persons are eligible for such assignment and the eligibility conditions are to

¶92

Page 7 of 11

¶93

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

¶94

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶95

be scrupulously followed by the Authorities.

¶96

The petitioners claim right from the subject property. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his order impugned stated that an appeal may be filed within a period of 30 days from the District Revenue Officer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Revenue Divisional Officer is an incompetent Authority.

¶97

May that as it be, the order itself stipulates a provision for an appeal to be filed before the District Revenue Officer and accordingly the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer.

¶98

Exhausting the appellate remedy is a paramount important. Factual

¶99

findings are relevant in the present case. Such factual findings would be of greater assistance for the High Court for the effective exercise of the powers of the Judicial Review.

¶100

The District Revenue Officer is competent to decide the issues

¶101

Page 8 of 11

¶102

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

¶103

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶104

relating to the classification of land and more specifically DC lands. This being the factum, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their objections and

¶105

documents if any, before the District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi for establishing their case. The petitioners are also at liberty to file an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi, who shall entertain the same and decide the same on merit. The District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi is directed to conduct an enquiry by affording an opportunity to all parties and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶106

With these directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶107

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶108

21.09.2023

¶109

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶110

¶111

Page 9 of 11

¶112

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

¶113

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶114

1.The Principal Secretary of Land Administration, Land Administration Department,

¶115

2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶116

Chennai – 600 005.

¶117

2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶118

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶119

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi,

¶120

Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶121

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

¶122

5.The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

¶123

Page 10 of 11

¶124

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

¶125

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶126

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶127

skr

¶128

W.P.Nos.24147, 24158, 24162 and 24165 of 2022

¶129

21.09.2023

¶130

Page 11 of 11

¶131

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

Maniyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Mangudi Village Panchayat Vs the Commissioner of Land

M.Sermarajan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Sermarajan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Kumaran Carbonates Private Limited Vs State Industries Promotion corporatioon of

A.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Commissioner of Land

P.Arun Vs District Collector