Allowed

B.Sadasivam, v. the Commissioner of Land

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WP(MD)/11694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that a writ petition challenging a cancellation order of a land assignment passed after a long delay with no hearing to the current possessor is allowed, following a prior decision establishing the three-year bar on such cancellations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order quashing impugned proceedings; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

B.Sadasivam, Vs the Commissioner of Land — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.9014, 9015, 10789 and 15128 of 2017 of 2017

B.Sadasivam

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration & The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,

¶11

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Proc.No.F2/22863/2015, dated 29.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶19

For petitioner : Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,

¶21

Additional Advocate General,

¶22

assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan,

¶23

Additional Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the land from Kalimunnisa Bibi, W/o.A.S.M.Ibrahim Sahib. He has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Principal Secretary / the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in his proceedings in Proc.No.F2/22863/2015 dated 29.03.2017.

¶26

2.By the order impugned in this writ petition, the land which has been assigned to Kalimunnisa Bibi in the year 1961, which is sought to be cancelled on the ground that Kalimunnisa Bibi's husband ASM.Ibrahim Sahib was an employee in the Railways Department. The assignee by suppressing this fact has approached the officials claiming herself as a poor and eligible for assignment and obtained this assignment of land. When it came to the notice of the officials, action was initiated.

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶30

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Kalimunnisa has sold

¶31

the property. The cancellation of order of assignment was passed after issuing notice to the legal heirs of Kalimuunisa Beevi, namely M.S.A.Mustafa Ibrahim (R3) and Basit Ibrahim (R2) and Umma Hani (R4) and they have informed that they have sold the property and the petitioner is in occupation of the property. However, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is in possession of the property, pursuant to the sale deed executed in his favour dated 27.03.2008, the impugned order has been passed.

¶32

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by one MSA.Musthafa Ibrahim in WP(MD)Nos.8799 of 2017 and 11231 of 2017 dated 24.06.2022 and submits that this Court has set aside the impugned order on the ground that the order of assignment cannot be set aside after a period of three years. In this case the assignment order was cancelled after a period of half a century and also by casting a stigma on the assignee namely, Kalimunnisa Bibi and her husband passed away on 02.06.2004.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶36

5.In view of the order passed in WP(MD)Nos.8799 of 2017 and 11231 of

¶37

2017 dated 24.06.2022, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.12.2023

dsk

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration & The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,

¶42

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶43

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶44

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶48

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶49

dsk

¶50

WP(MD)No.11694 of 2017

¶51

07.12.2023

¶52

5/5

¶53

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

B.Sadasivam, v. the Commissioner of Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sadasivam, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pudukottai Bar Association Vs the Secretary to Government

Singai Jinnah Vs the Executive Officer

S.Murugesan, Contractor, Vs the District Collector

The Secretary Vs The Director of School Education

M.Saravanan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

P. Rajagopal Vs the District Collector