Disposed

Dhanapal, v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WP/28008/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging the recommendation to cancel the petitioner's assignment of surplus land due to non-cultivation. In light of the petitioner's status as an ex-serviceman and government suggestions, the Court directed the District Collector to allot 35 cents of the 49-cent plot to the petitioner within three months, without prejudice to pending civil

What did the court decide?

The District Collector directed to take possession of the 49-cent land in S.No.11/1 and allot 35 cents to the petitioner within three months, without prejudice to pending civil suit rights.

Dhanapal, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P. No.28008 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.30060 of 2017

¶9

Dhanapal Petitioner v

¶10

1 The District Collector Villupuram District, Villupuram

¶11

2 Jayabalan Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a

¶13

writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records made in order Na.Ka.A2/25994/2016 dated 04.07.2017 on the file of the first respondent and

¶14

quash the same as illegal insofar as it affects the petitioner and remove the encroachments upon the land in S.No.11/I, Kondampakkam Village, measuring about 0.49 acres allotted to the petitioner by the Government on Army man quota to secure the ends of justice.

¶15

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

¶16

For petitioner Mr. P. Dinesh Kumar For R1 Mr. J. Ravindran Addl. Adv. General (Coordination) assisted by Mr. A. Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R2 Mr. C. Prabhakaran

¶17

1/8

¶18

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(made by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)

¶21

This writ petition impugns the proceedings dated 04.07.2017 of the first respondent recommending for cancellation of assignment granted in favour of the petitioner owing to violation of assignment condition, viz ., failure to cultivate the land.

¶22

2 The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶23

2.1 The land involved in this case is the one in S.No.11/1 of

¶24

Kandampakkam Village, Villupuram Taluk measuring an extent of 49 cents. Originally, the said land was assigned by the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms, Cuddalore, to one Natesa Gounder under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 (for brevity “the Rules”), on 11.11.1969. The said Natesa Gounder did not cultivate the assigned surplus land within 10 years and sold the same to one Kannappa Gounder on 17.06.1974, the father of the second respondent, sans permission from the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms, in violation of the Act. Hence, the assignment of the said surplus land was cancelled by the Authorised Officer of Land Reforms on 19.04.1979.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.2 While so, the petitioner, being an ex-serviceman, addressed the

¶26

2/8

¶27

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶28

Authorised Officer of Land Reforms on 28.01.1981 seeking assignment of surplus land in S.No.11/1, pursuant to which, the said land was re-assigned to the petitioner without field inspection, even during which time, the construction put up by the second respondent's father continued to exist.

¶29

2.3 Hence, the petitioner addressed a representation to the first respondent on 16.08.2016 to evict the encroachment made by the second respondent. Since his representation did not evoke any response, he filed a writ petition being W.P.No.35704 of 2016, in which, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.10.2016, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the first respondent herein to hold an enquiry after notice to all concerned and take a considered decision in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months.

¶30

2.4 Pursuant thereto, the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 04.07.2017, on the reasoning that the petitioner had not done direct cultivation for 34 years and thereby, violated the assignment condition, recommended for cancellation of assignment of land to the petitioner, challenging which, this writ petition has been filed, besides seeking a direction to remove the encroachment made by the second respondent and to allot 49 cents of land to the petitioner.

¶31

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

¶32

3/8

¶33

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶34

3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

4 According to Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General (Coordination), since the petitioner had violated the assignment condition, the property had vested with the Government.

¶36

5 In a riposte, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent has filed a civil suit in O.S. No.235 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, against the petitioner, Tahsildar, Villupuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram and the District Collector, Villupuram, seeking the relief of declaration of title.

¶37

6 Relying upon the proviso to Rule 9(1)(iv) of the Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no cancellation is permissible on the ground that the land has not been put to direct cultivation by the assignee, inasmuch as, the assignment in favour of the petitioner was made under Rule 5(1)(v) of the Rules under the category of member of Armed Forces and that the Government cannot deprive the ex-serviceman of the same.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General

¶39

4/8

¶40

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶41

(Coordination) submitted that pursuant to the suggestion made by this Court to find out the feasibility of giving 35 cents of land to the petitioner given the fact that he is an ex-serviceman, a decision has been taken by the first respondent to allot

¶42

35 cents to the petitioner.

¶43

8 A communication dated 21.11.2023 addressed in this regard by the

¶44

first respondent to the learned Government Advocate, is extracted below, for the sake of ready reference:

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of

¶46

5/8

¶47

W.P. No.28008 of 2017

¶48

Rule 9(1)(iv), supra , and also the aforesaid communication dated 21.11.2023 of the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to 35 cents in S.No.11/1 in Kandampakkam Village, Villupuram District.

¶49

10 In such perspective of the matter, the first respondent is directed to take possession of the land measuring 49 cents in S.No.11/1 of Kandampakkam Village, Villupuram Taluk and allot 35 cents from and out of the said land, to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in O.S. No.235 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram.

¶50

With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of, sans costs. Connected W.M.P. stands closed.

¶51

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 21.11.2023

¶52

cad

¶53

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

¶54

6/8

¶55

W.P. No.28008 of 2017