Remanded

Mangudi Village Panchayat v. the Commissioner of Land

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WP/30206/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order by the Commissioner of Land Administration that set aside a previous cancellation of a land assignment. The court held that the Commissioner failed to address the petitioner’s submission regarding violation of assignment conditions and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.05.2003 is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner of Land Administration for fresh consideration within twelve weeks addressing violation of assignment condi

Mangudi Village Panchayat Vs the Commissioner of Land — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.30206 of 2003 and

¶7

W.P.M.P.No.36887 of 2003

¶8

Mangudi Village Panchayat, Rep. by its President Duraisamy, Mangudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, II Floor, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi.

¶14

4.R.Krishnasamy

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1 st

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶20

respondent bearing Proceedings No.Na.Ka.G2/24086/2002 dated 21.05.2003 confirming the order of the 2 nd respondent bearing Proceedings No.Na.Ka.10098/2001 E2 dated 28.03.2002 reversing the order of the 3 rd respondent in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.5558/98 A3 dated 22.01.2001 and quash the order dated 21.05.2003.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu

¶22

For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader. For R4 : Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Mangudi Village Panchayat is the writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration in proceedings dated 21.05.2003.

¶25

2.The writ petitioner Village Panchayat states that the lands comprised in S.Nos.122/1, 122/2, 122/3 and 4 are said to have been assigned by the Assignment Tahsildar by his proceedings of the year 1986 Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶28

in favour of one Mani, Chinnathambi, Subban and Chellappan. The 4 th respondent subsequently claimed that he had purchased the assigned land from the assignees who were not the real persons in existence either at that point of time or at present. The petitioner has stated that the assigned land was abused and sold fraudulently. It is not in dispute that the assignment was cancelled by the competent authorities and the Government resumed the lands. The matter went up to the Commissioner of Land Administration, who in turn passed an order setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer.

¶29

3.The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Village Panchayat brought to the notice of this Court that the assignment conditions, cancellation of assignment and the utilization of the Government lands are not considered by the Commissioner of Land Administration while passing the impugned orders. Violation of assignment conditions are established. Thus, the assignment is liable to be cancelled. Contrarily the Commissioner of Land Administration has set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer on other grounds. The vital ground regarding the violation

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶33

of assignment conditions are not dealt with and therefore, the petitioner is

¶34

constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶35

4.The writ petition was instituted in the year 2003, the lands assigned were sold in favour of ineligible persons and therefore, the assignment was

¶36

cancelled. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the cancellation of assignment order passed by the original authorities. However, the Commissioner of Land Administration has not considered these aspects and set aside the order. Thus, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Land Administration for complete adjudication of facts on the grounds raised by the parties.

¶37

5.In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed

¶38

by the Commissioner of Land Administration in proceedings Na.Ka.G2/24086/2002 dated 21.05.2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Land Administration for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by following the procedures as contemplated. The Commissioner

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶42

of Land Administration shall consider the vital grounds raised by the petitioner that the conditions stipulated in the assignment order had been violated by the assignees and therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the cancellation of assignment made by the competent authorities. In this regard, the finding of the District Revenue Officer is to be considered with reference to the order dated 22.01.2001. The said exercise is directed to be completed by the Commissioner of Land Administration within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. N o costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

20.09.2023

¶45

cse Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶49

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶50

cse

¶51

¶52

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, II Floor, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶53

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

¶54

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi.

¶55

W.P.No.30206 of 2003

¶56

20.09.2023

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

Mangudi Village Panchayat v. the Commissioner of Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangudi Village Panchayat v. the Commissioner of Land

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

C.Dhamodaran Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration

K.Selladurai Vs The District Collector

G.Kalarani Vs The Tahsildar

T.Muthulakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Velusamy Vs The Sub Registrar

J.Soundararajan Vs The Sub Registrar