Allowed

D.Sundari v. the Land Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jan 2023WP(MD)/7232/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order that set aside an assignment of surplus land. The Court held that the lower authority's finding that notices were not published was without evidence and the order failed on wrong appreciation of facts.

What did the court decide?

The order of the 1st respondent in D1/R.P.No.5/2007 (L.Ref) dated 17.03.2011 setting aside the assignment is set aside.

D.Sundari Vs the Land Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :05.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011

¶8

1.D.sundari 2.A.Pichchai ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms) 165.D, Bharathi Ula Street, Race Course Colony, Near Thamaraithotti, Madurai-20 3.A.Andiappan 4.K.Karuppiah ... Respondents

¶9

Page 1 of 8

¶10

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

¶11

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in D1/R.P.No.5/2007 (L.Ref) dated 17.03.2011 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents :Ms.D.Farjana Ghowshia Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 :No appearance for R3 & R4

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent, whereby the assignment granted to the petitioner under the

¶16

provisions of the Land Reforms Act had been set aside.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an

¶18

extent of 101.33 acres of land was declared as surplus in Kallankudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District from the holdings of Thiru C.T.Devaraj, as per the Notification under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms [Fixation of Ceiling of Land] Act, 1961, out of the declared surplus lands, lands were originally assigned in favour of one Tvl.Andiappan and Karuppiah. The said assignment was cancelled by the

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

2 nd

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶23

2^nd respondent herein, by proceedings dated 25.09.1996. As against the cancellation, the aforesaid persons have filed a revision before the Land Commissioner/1^st respondent herein. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner had been assigned lands in Survey No.153/1B and 153/1C and patta bearing Nos.858 and 869 had been issued in their favour. When the 1^st respondent had taken the revision filed by the persons whose assignment has been cancelled, the 1^st respondent, while rejecting their revision, inter alia, had also set aside the order of assignment granted in favour of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no notices had been issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The order rejecting the claim of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents were challenged by them in W.P.(MD).No.12346 of 2011. The said writ petition was dismissed, against which, they had also preferred an intra Court appeal in W.A.(MD).No.991 of 2016 and the same also came to be dismissed on 14.02.2018.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit

¶25

that the 1^st respondent had held that the order of assignment made to the

¶26

Page 3 of 8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶29

petitioner had been made in a hurried manner, without properly following the procedures laid down under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms [Fixation of Ceiling of Land] Act, 1961, to come to the conclusion that there are procedural irregularities in the order of assignment. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the proposal of assignment in favour of the petitioner, the petitioners were asked to remit the value of the land and pursuant to such demand, the petitioners have also paid the amount. Thereafter, the assignment order was issued by the 2^nd respondent herein on 10.01.1997 and possession was handed over to the petitioners on 16.01.1997. Pursuant to the order of assignment, the petitioners have also approached the revenue authorities and pattas have been issued in their favour. Therefore, the reason assigned by the 1^st respondent that the procedure laid down in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms [Fixation of Ceiling of Land] Act, 1961, have not been followed, is wholly imaginary. Hence, he sought interference with the order passed by the 1^st respondent, insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of assignment dated 28.12.1996, in favour of the petitioners.

¶30

Page 4 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶33

Countering his arguments, the learned Special Government

¶34

Pleader would submit that the procedure as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms [Disposal of Surplus Land] Rules, 1965, has been completely overlooked by the grant of assignment made in favour of the petitioners. She would submit that no proper enquiry has been conducted by the 2^nd respondent before granting the assignment and no notification of proposal of assignment has also been made. These two aspects are very crucial before grant of assignment of surplus lands. Hence, she would submit that there is infirmity in the order passed by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, she would request this Court to dismiss this writ petition.

¶35

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side.

¶36

It is an admitted case that an order of assignment has been made in favour of the petitioners and the cancellation of assignment, as against the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, had become final, in view of the dismissal of the writ appeal. The impugned order in detail deals with the procedure of assignment in favour of the petitioners herein. The reasons that

¶37

Page 5 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶40

have been assigned by the 1^st respondent are that even though they claimed to be a resident of Karaikudi Village, the Village Administrative Officer had given a statement that they are residing at Alagapuri Village. From the impugned order, it is seen that the Form D notice has been issued by the 2^nd respondent herein on 16.12.1996 and they were sent to the respective offices for publication. The notices have been received by the Special Revenue Inspector on 16.12.1996 indicating that an enquiry will be held on 20.03.1996. The Special Tahsildar had made an enquiry on 20.12.1996. Based on the enquiry of the Special Tahsildar, the assignment order has been issued by the 2^nd respondent. It is not clear on what basis a factual position has been arrived at that such notices has not been published in the respective offices. It is admitted that when any such notices in Form D has been sent by the 2^nd respondent to the Revenue Offices, the same will have to be published in the notice board. There is no evidence, either in the order or in the counter to substantiate that the notices have not been published. Hence, in my view, the order impugned is without any basis and on wrong appreciation of the facts. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be interfered with and consequently liable to be set aside.

¶41

Page 6 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.7232 of 2011

¶44

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the 1^st respondent in D1/R.P.No.5/2007 (L.Ref) dated 17.03.2011 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶45

05.01.2023

¶46

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn

¶47

¶48