Purchaser of government-assigned land challenged a cryptic show cause notice alleging violation of assignment terms. The court held the notice non-speaking, found no violation since the sale was after the 10-year bar and no prior-permission condition existed, quashed the notice, and allowed liberty to act on credible grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.20983 of 2018
Easwaran
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Collector, Office of the Sub Collector, Palani, Dindigul District.
3.The Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceeding in Na.Ka.No. 7588/2018/A6, dated 08.11.2018 and quash the same in so far as the property in S.F.No.228/62 at Ellapatty Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prakaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
second respondent vide his proceeding, dated 08.11.2018.
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
categories of assignment orders issued by the Government submitted that the assigned lands for which the notices were issued related to Category No.5, (i.e) general category. According to the respondents, as per the instructions in G.O.Ms.2485 Revenue, dated 09.11.1979, the purchasers had to obtain prior permission either from Tashildar or Revenue Divisional Officer before alienating the assignment lands. The respondents in their counter though admitted that the petitioner had purchased the lands after lapse of 10 years nevertheless stated that the petitioner was bound to show cause if any other condition of the assignment order was violated. The respondents submitted that though the impugned order was only a show cause notice, on the apprehension that the assignment order would be cancelled the petitioner filed the writ petition. The respondents therefore submitted that as the writ petition was filed on mere apprehension, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
Land Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents having admitted that the petitioner had purchased the property beyond the period of 10 years stipulated under the assignment order had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the impugned order was not sustainable and the same deserved to be set aside.
Xl;ld;rj;jpuk; tl;lk;> vy;yg;gl;b fpuhkk;> Gy vz;.241 / 27> 169 / 10>11> 170 / 11> 228 / 95> 42gp> 58gp> 96> 62> 9> 11> 10> 13> 15> 19> 16> 72> 73> 74> 76> 77> 78> 79> 8082> 83> 85> 86> 87> 240 / 56>57> 206 / 2>3>4>6 171 / 3>196 / 1>8>7> 239 / 3 Mfpatw;wpy; epy
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
xg;gil toq;fg;gl;l ,dq;fspy; ege;jid kPwy; fz;lwpag;gl;lJ njhlh;ghf tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;bAs;sjhy; jq;fs; iftrKs;s mry; Mtzq;fSld; 14.11.2018 md;W godp rhh; Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; rhh; Ml;rpahpd; Kd;ghf M[uhFk;gb Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.
From a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondents have not cited any grounds of violation. The respondents having stated that violations of the assignment order were found, ought to have specifically stated the specific violation/ violations. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in stating that the impugned order is cryptic and nonspeaking. It is further seen that though the impugned order is only a show cause notice, in the absence of any grounds of violations, the petitioner cannot be expected to reply to the same.
"13. There is no dispute that the property could be transferred with the permission of the revenue authorities. When the Revenue authorities on their own motion and by accepting the sale deed dt. 16.5.1967 endorsed the ownership of the first appellant and mutated the revenue entries in his name, such transfer should be considered to be an act of permission for
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
assigning the land. The revenue authorities having passed orders for mutation of revenue records, cannot be permitted subsequently to cancel the very assignment on the ground that there was no prior permission from the revenue authorities for transfer of assignment. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer Virudhachalam was not justified in cancelling the assignment in favour of the first appellant."
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
on this ground also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. I therefore set aside the impugned order.
11. Though the learned Government Advocate for the respondents prayed that the matter may be remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration, I am not inclined to accede to the request as even in the counter affidavit, the respondents has not referred to any violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment. Even otherwise, it is trite that the respondents cannot improve the case in the counter.
12. In view of the above facts, the writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to take action for cancellation of assignment, only if credible materials and grounds are established for cancellation of the same. It is needless to say that in such event, the respondents shall put the petitioner on notice and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.11.2024
NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no SN
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
To:
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
N.MALA, J.
SN
W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2018
26.11.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Was the show cause notice dated 08.11.2018 sustainable when it cited no specific violation of the assignment conditions?
Could alienation after 10 years, without prior permission not required by the assignment order, be a ground for cancellation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Easwaran
The District Collector, Dindigul District
The Sub Collector, Palani
The Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk
N.Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
