Dismissed

Selvi v. The District collector

Madras HC9 Aug 2023WP/3410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing sub-division of government land assigned to petitioners. The Court directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry into alleged violations of assignment conditions instead of quashing the order, noting the petitioner's right to an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. The District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits.

Selvi Vs The District collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09-08-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

WP No.3410 of 2022 And

¶7

WMP Nos.3512 and 12370 of 2022

¶8

1.Selvi

¶9

2.Mayalagan

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi and District.

¶13

2.The District Revenue Officer, The District Collectorate, Kallakurichi and District.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Kallakurichi and District.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶16

5.S.Periyasamy

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

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

WP No.3410 of 2022

6.K.Rajendran

7.S.Selvarasu

8.N.Paneerselvam

9.S.Murukesan

10.K.Desinguraja

11.K.Chinnathambi

12.S.Arunachalam

13.P.Alamelu

14.N.Malar

15.R.Madeswaran

16.P.Ayyam Perumal

17.T.Thangarasu

... Respondents

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 22.12.2021 in Ref.No.Na.Ka.A2/1847/2012 issued by the third respondent and follow-up proceedings and consequently quash the same.

¶34

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Gunasekar

¶35

For Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate.

¶36

Page 2 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶39

For Respondents-5 to 7, 9 to 16 : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondent-8 : No Appearance For Respondent-17 : Deceased. Steps due.

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the third respondent-

¶42

Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶43

It is not in dispute between the parties that the subject lands

¶44

were assigned in favour of the petitioners and there is a dispute even in respect of the assignment.

¶45

The petitioners submitted an application for grant of patta

¶46

based on the decree passed by the Civil Court granting an injunction not to dispossess the writ petitioners form the assigned property. The petitioners were granted patta based on the assignment made by the Government.

¶47

Page 3 of 8

¶48

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

¶49

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶50

The relief as such sought for by the petitioners in the civil

¶51

suit not to cancel the patta was rejected and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order in proceedings dated 23.08.2021 asking the Tahsildar, Chinnasalem to file an appropriate appeal against the decree of injunction obtained by the petitioners and initiate further actions.

¶52

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi furher passed impugned order in proceedings dated 22.12.2021 asking the Tahsildar, Chinnasalem to make sub divisions and by creating pathway, necessary orders are to be passed for grant of patta.

¶53

The petitioners have challenged the said order on the ground that they are the original assignees and are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. An order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi for sub-dividing the subject property for the purpose of creation of pathway is improper. More-over, certain portions of the assigned lands were also purchased by the petitioners without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authorities.

¶54

Page 4 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶57

The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of

¶58

the respondents 1 to 4, made a submission that the conditions imposed in

¶59

the assignment have been violated by the Assignees and therefore, the assignment is liable to be cancelled.

¶60

It is needless to state that the assignment of Government

¶61

lands made under the Welfare Scheme, is to be maintained as per he conditions stipulated in the assignment. In the event of violation of the assignment conditions, the Competent Authorities are empowered to cancel the assignment.

¶62

In the present case, the learned Government Advocate,

¶63

appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, states that the assigned lands were sold without prior permission of the Competent Authorities.

¶64

All these aspects are to be gone into by the Competent Authorities for the purpose of settling the issues relating to the assignment of Government lands.

¶65

Page 5 of 8

¶66

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

¶67

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶68

In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶69

Kallakurichi has passed two orders in respect of two issues, i.e., one relating to the decree of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioners and the other relating to the creation of pathway by effecting sub-division in the subject property.

¶70

This being the factum, the petitioners are having right of appeal, which is to be exhausted. The order impugned itself states that the petitioners have to prefer an appeal, within a period of thirty days before the Competent Authorities.

¶71

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, made a submission that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer.

¶72

That being the factum, the District Revenue Officer,

¶73

Kallakurichi is directed to conduct an enquiry with reference to the revenue records and verify the assignment conditions and its violations or otherwise,

¶74

Page 6 of 8

¶75

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

¶76

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶77

if any and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶78

With the above directions, the present writ petition stands

¶79

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶80

09-08-2023

¶81

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶82

¶83

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi and District.

¶84

2.The District Revenue Officer, The District Collectorate, Kallakurichi and District.

¶85

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Kallakurichi and District.

¶86

Page 7 of 8

¶87

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

¶88

WP No.3410 of 2022

¶89

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶90

Svn

¶91

4.The Tahsildar, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

WP 3410 of 2022

09-08-2023

Page 8 of 8

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

Selvi v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi v. The District collector

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

G.Kaliyammal Vs The District Collector

V.Yellappa Vs The District Collector

Suguna Vs The District Collector

S.Karpagalakshmi Vs State of tamilnadu

A.John Vs the District Collector

Mrs.v.Preetha Vs the Inspector General of