Allowed

S. Veluchamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Oct 2023WP(MD)/1663/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their assignment patta. The High Court found that though notices existed in the file, there was no proof of service before the cancellation proceedings. The Circuit allowed the writ, quashing the orders and remanding the matter for fresh proceedings with proper notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings by the second and third respondents are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Matter remanded to the second respondent to issue notice wi

S. Veluchamy Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1663 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1400 of 2020

¶7

1.S.Veluchamy

¶8

2.M.Karuppuraja

¶9

3.K.Kala

¶10

4.P.Shanmugavalli

¶11

5.A.Muthu

¶12

6.M.Balan

¶13

7.M.Kaleeswaran

¶14

8.K.Murugesan

¶15

9.B.Devi

¶16

10.K.Baskaran

¶17

11.S.Kalaiarasan

12.M.Povalingam

13.M.Mangal Eswari

14.K.Oorkavalan

15.P.Murugavel ...Petitioners

¶22

/Vs./

¶23

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

¶24

1/7

¶25

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶26

1.The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Ramnathapuram District, Ramnathapuram.

¶27

2.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, O/o.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Office, Collectorate Building, Ramnathapuram District, Ramnathapuram.

¶28

3.The Special Thasildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), O/o.The Special Thasildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Office, Paramakudi,

Ramanthapuram.

4.K.Kalidhass

...Respondents

(R4 is impleaded vide order of this Court dated 01.07.2022 in WMP(MD)No. 4461 of 2020.)

¶33

PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the order of the respondent No.2 dated 13.09.2017 in Na.Ka.No.2/33504/20174 as illegal and the consequential order dated 04.07.2019 in O.Mu.No.A/368/2019 on the file of the respondent No.3 insofar as the petitioner concerned as illegal.

¶34

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan (R1 to R3) Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.Vadivel (R4)

¶35

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

¶36

2/7

¶37

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2/33504/20174, dated 13.09.2017 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in proceedings in O.Mu.No.A/368/2019 dated 04.07.2019.

¶40

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the beneficiaries, who were given assignment patta by the third respondent by imposing necessary conditions. The grievance of the petitioners is that the assignment is said to have been cancelled by the second respondent through impugned proceedings dated 13.09.2017 and as a result, consequential order came to be passed by the third respondent through proceedings dated 04.07.2019. According to the petitioners, the cancellation of the assignment patta was done behind the back of the petitioners and without affording them any opportunity. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶41

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.10.2023, this Court passed the following order:-

¶42

“ The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel

¶43

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

¶44

3/7

¶45

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶46

for the petitioner is that the assignment that was made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled even without hearing the petitioners on notice. The learned Additional Government Pleader seeks for sometime to go through the files and ascertain, if any notice is issued to the petitioners before the cancellation of assignment. Post on 09.10.2023 'For Orders'.”

¶47

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that on going through the file, even though notices are available in the names of the petitioners, there is no proof that these notices were served on the petitioners before the impugned proceedings were issued.

¶48

5. In the present case, the petitioners were issued assignment pattas. In view of the same, a right has been created in favour of the petitioners and while withdrawing that right, the procedure will have to be necessarily followed, since it involves civil consequences to the petitioners.

¶49

6. From the submissions made by the learned Additional Government

¶50

Pleader, it is clear that no notices were served on the petitioners before cancelling the assignment patta. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the second and third respondents and remand

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶52

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶53

the matter back to the file of the second respondent. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2/33504/20174, dated 13.09.2017 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in O.Mu.No.A/368/2019 dated 04.07.2019 are hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶54

7. The matter is remanded back to the file of the second respondent and the second respondent is directed to issue notice on the petitioners and call for their explanation and thereafter take a decision on its own merits and in accordance with law. This process shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

8. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Insofar as the allotment that was made in favour of the impleaded fourth respondent, the same will be subject to the final decision taken by the second respondent pursuant to the remand. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶56

09.10.2023

¶57

NCC : Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No

¶58

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

¶59

5/7

¶60

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

6/7

¶64

WP(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶65

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶66

¶67

TO:

¶68

1.The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Ramnathapuram District, Ramnathapuram.

¶69

2.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, O/o.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Office, Collectorate Building, Ramnathapuram District, Ramnathapuram.

¶70

3.The Special Thasildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), O/o.The Special Thasildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Office, Paramakudi, Ramanthapuram.

¶71

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1663 of 2020

¶72

Dated: 09.10.2023

¶73

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

¶74

7/7

S. Veluchamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Veluchamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Vs the Dist.Collector

M. Vivek Vs the Reserve Bank of India(Rbi)

Sikkanthar Beevi Vs the Tahsildar

Raja.D Vs the Commissioner

Arun. S.L. Vs The District Collector

Csc Sivakumar Vs the State Chief Information Commissioner