Dismissed

Panjavarnam. S v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Feb 2023WP(MD)/665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Madurai Bench dismissed writ petitions filed by individuals claiming entitlement to housing plots from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on government-acquired land. The Court held the petitioners were rank trespassers and re-trying a settled issue, refusing to force allotment or invoke land recovery rules.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.

Panjavarnam. S Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.665 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.672 of 2023

¶7

S.Panjavarnam

¶8

S.Manimurugan

¶9

S.Susila

¶10

K.Ramila

¶11

S.Krishnadevi

¶12

K.Kanagavalli

¶13

V.Meenakshi

¶14

T.Annalakshmi

¶15

R.R.Durgadevi

¶16

K.Girija

¶17

M.Savithri

¶18

C.Santhi

¶19

T.N.Pathmasri

¶20

K.Selvi

¶21

V.Saraswathy

¶22

M.Dhanalakshmi

¶23

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

¶24

1/20

¶25

2 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶26

K.A.Prema

¶27

M.Mahalakshmi

¶28

N.K.Vijayalakshmi

¶29

J.Saroja

¶30

N.K.Gunavathy

¶31

V.Ayyammal

¶32

M.Rajeshwari

¶33

R.Parameshwari

¶34

K.Ramesh

¶35

K.Umamaheshwari

¶36

S.S.Indumathy

¶37

J.A.Radhika

¶38

K.Azhagesan

¶39

S.Rajeshwar

¶40

T.Haritha

¶41

R.Amutha

¶42

T.Murugesan

¶43

R.Ramuthai

¶44

M.Jeyalakshmi

¶45

R.B.Ayesha

¶46

V.Pushpavalli

¶47

2/20

¶48

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

¶49

3 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶50

R.Senthilrajan

¶51

R.Murugan

¶52

T.K.Saroja

¶53

K.G.Lakshmi

¶54

B.S.Vimala

¶55

G.R.Chandrasekar

¶56

G.N.Geetha

¶57

B.S.Sridevi 46. J.K.Vasanthi 47. R.Ramamoorthy 48. N.Suganya

¶58

P.Banumathi

¶59

M.Shenbegavalli 51. S.Chithra Devi

¶60

Ganga

¶61

T.S.Kalavathi 54. M.S.Devi

¶62

K.Backiam

¶63

R.Indira

¶64

K.Krishnaveni

¶65

C.Radha @ Chellammal

¶66

3/20

¶67

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

¶68

4 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶69

M.Visalachi

¶70

R.Muthulakshmi

¶71

R.A.Lakshmi

¶72

R.Renuga Devi

¶73

T.Dhanalakshmi

¶74

V.Vijaykumar

¶75

R.Meenakshi

¶76

V.Ponnumayil

¶77

K.Jeeva

¶78

S.Samayamuthu

¶79

S.Kottamalai

¶80

R.Jayalakshmi

¶81

S.Poonkodi

¶82

R.Velladurai

¶83

R.Kannan

¶84

M.Ravindiranath

¶85

M.Vijaya

¶86

P.Jayakumar

¶87

S.Sathyajothi

¶88

A.Panjavarnam

¶89

Muniammal

¶90

4/20

¶91

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

¶92

5 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶93

M.Manimegalai

¶94

N.Maruthavalli

¶95

S.Chellpandiammal

¶96

M.Papathi

¶97

D.Muthupandi

¶98

D.M.Usha

¶99

R.Panjavarnam

¶100

87.E.Chithradevi

¶101

R.Rajendran

¶102

89.M.K.Meenakshi Sundari

¶103

J.Chellapandi

¶104

M.Rajeshwari

¶105

S.Chithradevi

¶106

K.Dhanalakshmi

¶107

94.T.Leelavathi

¶108

A.Eswari

¶109

P.Mahalakshmi

¶110

S.Marishwari

¶111

S.Latha

¶112

M.Rajarajeshwari

¶113

100.R.Packianathan

¶114

5/20

¶115

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

¶116

6 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶117

S.Pandilakshmi

¶118

K.Padmavathi 103. S.Mahalakshmi 104. M.Pandeeswari 105. S.Kamalarani 106. S.Rajeshwari 107.T.Vasantha 108.S.Tharabanu 109.P.Bhuvaneshwari 110.J.Mahalakshmi 111. P.Packiam 112. B.Maheshwari 113. R.Periyakani 114. L.Thangavel 115. S.Lakshmi Priya 116. G.S.Lalitha 117. C.Kunjaram 118. G.Mahalakshmi 119. M.Karuppayee 120. K.Mareeshwari 121. C.Ganesamoorthy

¶119

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

¶120

6/20

¶121

7 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶122

A.Kumarasan

¶123

P.Pandiammal

¶124

S.Murugan 125. V.Saravanakumar 126. A.S.Kuppumani 127. R.Krishnan 128. P.M.Pandi 129.V.Salai (Muthuselvi) 130.M.Ramar 131.K.Shanmugalakshmi 132.V.Mahalakshmi 133.B.Dhanalakshmi 134.K.Sarojini 135. M.Amutha 136. P.Thangapandi 137. G.Pandiammal 138. S.Subbulakshmi 139. N.Praveena 140. K.Valli 141. A.Karthika 142. S.Subbulakshmi

¶125

7/20

¶126

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

¶127

8 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶128

M.Manimegalai 144. Gnanam 145. P.Pichaiammal 146. K.Krishnammal 147. V.Susila 148. C.Indhirani 149. T.Karupayee 150. G.Mukkammal 151. Kumaran 152. M.Rambabu 153. P.Mani 154. P.Pandiammal 155. Syed Ali Fathima 156. P.Jaya Sri 157. S.Sudha 158. K.Jeyanthi 159. Shanthi 160. R.Meena 161. N.Pavithra 162. Meera ... Petitioners

¶129

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

¶130

8/20

¶131

9 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶132

Vs.

¶133

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing Department, Chennai.

¶134

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶135

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶136

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai.

¶137

The Chief Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai – 600 035.

¶138

The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Madurai Housing Board, Avaniyapuram, Madurai.

¶139

The Assistant Secretary (Allotment), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai – 35.

¶140

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (South), Madurai. ... Respondents

¶141

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

¶142

9/20

¶143

10 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶144

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to allot the land to an extent of 2¼ cents after the receipt of the land cost prevailing the market value of the year 1996 in S.No.411/1 at Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai South (Taluk) and execute the sale deed by invoking the provision under the Revenue Standing Order No.15(1)(v) to each petitioners within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶145

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Selvanayagam

¶146

For R-1 to R-3&R-8 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, Government Advocate. For R-4 to R-7 : Mr.R.Sivakumar, Standing Counsel.

¶147

¶148

O R D E R

¶149

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ

¶150

petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 8 and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7.

¶151

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

¶152

10/20

¶153

11 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶154

The case of the petitioners is that they are in

¶155

possession and occupation of the petition mentioned land for a very long number of years and that the third respondent must be directed to allot the lands in their favour to an extent of 2¼ cents each after receipt of market value. The petitioners called upon this Court to direct the third respondent to execute sale deed in their favour after invoking RSO 15(1)(v).

¶156

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners

¶157

took me through the averments set out in the writ petition and also the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. He called upon this Court to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶158

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the

¶159

Housing Board submitted that the writ petition is without any merit. He called upon this Court to dismiss the same.

¶160

I carefully considered the rival contentions and went

¶161

through the materials on record.

¶162

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

¶163

11/20

¶164

12 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶165

It is not as if the petitioners are approaching this

¶166

Court for the first time. They had already filed W.P.(MD) No.7175 of 2009. The prayer made in the said writ petition is as follows:-

¶167

“ Writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶168

Constitution of India, praying for issuance of

¶169

a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to divide the land in S.No.411/1 and 1/1, at Avaniyapuram into housing plots and allot the same to the petitioners, as promised by the respondent on so many occasions.”

¶170

Vide order dated 31.07.2014, the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.A.(MD)No.1064 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide Order dated 13.06.2017 dismissed the writ appeal in the following terms:-

¶171

“ Accordingly, while dismissing the writ

¶172

appeal, we direct the appellants to submit individual applications to the District Collector for grant of alternate site and if such

¶173

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

¶174

12/20

¶175

13 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶176

applications are submitted by them, the District Collector shall direct the subordinate officers to conduct an enquiry and ascertain the eligibility or otherwise of the appellants for allotment of alternate site, whether they are landless poor etc., and consider the applications on merits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶177

The petitioners filed review application(MD)No.172 of 2018. It was also dismissed on 14.09.2021 in the following terms:-

¶178

“ 7. We support such conclusion for the

¶179

following reasons. It is submitted by the

¶180

learned senior counsel for the

¶181

appellants/review petitioners that two counter affidavits were filed by the Housing Board, one dated 28.08.2010 and other dated 28.01.2011. In both the counter

¶182

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

¶183

13/20

¶184

14 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶185

affidavits, inconsistent stand has been taken in the matter of whether 'B' memos were issued to the petitioners or not. Therefore, it is submitted that when the Housing Board has accepted in one of the counter affidavit that 'B' memos were issued to the petitioners, it goes without saying that their occupation has been recognized as encroachments and they would be entitled to seek for allotment of house sites or atleast alternate site in a different location.

¶186

8.Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that issuance of 'B' memos does not in any create any vested right with the petitioners to claim to continue to be in possession of the land which they have encroached and also simultaneously claim to sub divide the land and allot plots to the encroachers. This proposition can never be accepted, as if done, it would putting a premium on a person who had violated the law and

¶187

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

¶188

14/20

¶189

15 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶190

encroached in the property vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board pursuant to the land acquisition done by the Government of Tamil Nadu. That apart, there is no vested right for the petitioners to claim that they shall be allotted alternate site.

¶191

9.We are informed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board that soon after the dismissal of the writ petition, the review petitioners were evicted but thereafter they once again forcibly entered upon the land. It is further stated that even much earlier in the year 1986 the review petitioners were evicted.

¶192

10.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this was never the stand taken by the Housing Board in their counter affidavits filed in the writ petition.

¶193

11.Be that as it may, all the petitioners are to be termed as rank trespassers into

¶194

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

¶195

15/20

¶196

16 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶197

the Government property and a different terminology by terming them as encroachers would not make things better nor change the legal position in their favour. We find that there is absolutely no error in the judgment and order passed in the writ appeal calling for exercise of review jurisdiction.

¶198

12.Accordingly, the review application

¶199

stands dismissed. No costs.”

¶200

Since a direction had been given for consideration of the petitioners' request, the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued communication dated 21.10.2022 informing the petitioners that if the petitioners applied for allotment at any alternative place, the same will be considered on merits and as per the norms.

¶201

I am satisfied with the said response. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Housing Board, the petitioners are trying to re-agitate an

¶202

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

¶203

16/20

¶204

17 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶205

issue which was already decided against them. I cannot deal with the contention anchored on RSO 15(1)(v). It is as follows:-

¶206

“ Assignment of land on payment

¶207

of value :- In case, the land is assigned, on payment of land value and a condition was imposed in the order of grant, to the effect that the assignee could not dispose of the property, then the land could be resumed, if the land was either not utilised for the purpose for which it was granted, within the specified period or alienated to others, even after utilising the land.”

¶208

It is true that the Housing Board has not paid the entire amount to the Government. But then, it is for the Government to take a call in the matter as to whether the land should be resumed from the Housing Board. The petitioners have no locus standi as such. This Court also will not be justified in directing the Government to invoke the aforesaid RSO. This is because as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is also a

¶209

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

¶210

17/20

¶211

18 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶212

statutory body and the land has been acquired by it for public purpose. The land has also been handed over legally to the Housing Board.

¶213

I wanted to know whether the petitioners are still in possession of the same. The materials on record indicate that the land has been acquired for public purposes and handed over to the Housing Board.

¶214

Unless the petitioners have legal right as such, it is not open to them to maintain a Writ of Mandamus. If the petitioners have come forward before this Court for the first time, it would be a different matter altogether. The petitioners had already lost in three rounds. A settled issue cannot be unsettled at this point of time. The authorities have informed the petitioners that they will be given alternative sites subject to the petitioners fulfilling the relevant norms. In these circumstances, the question of issuing a positive mandamus to the district administration or the Government does not arise at all.

¶215

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

¶216

18/20

¶217

19 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶218

This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶219

14.02.2023

¶220

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU

¶221

To:

¶222

The Secretary, Housing Department, Chennai.

¶223

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶224

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶225

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (South), Madurai.

¶226

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

¶227

19/20

¶228

20 W.P.(MD)NO.665 OF 2023

¶229

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶230

PMU

¶231

W.P.(MD)No.665 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.672 of 2023

¶232

14.02.2023

¶233

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

¶234

20/20

Panjavarnam. S v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjavarnam. S v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Hemalatha.a.R Vs The Union of India

Muthu Vs The District Collector

Chinnapponnammal Vs The District Collector

Jawahar S Vs Elangovan

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj Vs The Commissioner

Deepan Chakravarthi Vs The District Collector