Allowed

Saraswathi, W/O. Periyasamy, v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Nov 2024WP(MD)/25270/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an impugned show cause notice issued by the Sub Collector requiring the petitioner to appear for inquiry regarding her purchased government assigned land. The Court held the notice unsustainable as it cited no specific grounds of violation and was issued after a decade-long unexplained delay regarding a sale

What did the court decide?

The impugned show cause notice dated 01.10.2018 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

Saraswathi, W/O. Periyasamy, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018 and WMP(MD)Nos. 22872 of 2018 and 13750 of 2023 Saraswathi ... Petitioner

¶7

/Vs./

¶8

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶9

2.The Sub Collector, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication of the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7141/208/A6 dated 01.10.2018 and quash the same in so far as the property situate in S.F.Nos.88/1 and 89/1 at Sindalaptti Village, Oddanchathram Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrasekar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate Civil side

¶14

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

¶15

1/10

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari

¶19

calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 01.10.2018 to quash the same in so far as the property of the petitioner is concerned.

¶20

2 . The land in S.No.88/1, to an extent of 0.32.5 hectares, and in S.No.89/1 to an extent of 0.041.0 hectares, in Sindalapatti Village, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District was originally assigned to one Soudan Madhari as per the revenue standing order 15. The said assignee sold the property to one Nachammal under sale deed dated 28.06.1990. Patta was also transferred in favour of Nachammal and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property over two decades. The petitioner purchased from the said Nachammal on 16.03.2007. While so, the second respondent issued impugned communication dated 01.10.2018, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 08.10.2018, for enquiry. The second respondent relied on the spot inspection and the report of the third respondent dated 24.09.2018, which was not furnished

¶21

2/10

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶24

to the petitioner, for passing the impugned communication. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶25

3. The respondents after referring to the back ground of facts and the 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 assigned lands. The respondents in their counter though admitted that the petitioner had purchased the lands after lapse of 10 years, however stated that the petitioner was bound to show cause, if any of the conditions of the assignment order were violated. The respondents submitted that the impugned order was only a show cause notice and on mere apprehension that the assignment order would be cancelled, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The respondents therefore submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶26

3/10

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶29

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was non-speaking and cryptic and hence unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as the powers vested only with the Land Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents having admitted that the petitioner had purchased the property beyond the period of 10 years the show cause notice, had no legs to stand. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the impugned order was not sustainable and the same deserved to be set aside.

¶30

5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents on the other hand submitted that even if the assigned property was sold after the period of 10 years, the assignee, was bound to get the permission from the authorities for alienation of lands, as no permission was sought, the impugned order could not be faulted. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that, in any event, the impugned order was only a show cause notice and hence the writ petition should not be entertained.

¶31

4/10

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶34

6. I heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

7. The impugned order passed by the second respondent reads as follows:

¶36

Xl;ld;rj;jpuk; tl;lk;> rpe;jyggl;b fpuhkk;> Gy ; vz;.88 /1 kw;Wk; rpytw;wpy; jho;j;jg;gl;l md tFg;igr; Nrh;e;j egh;fSf;F epy xg;gil toq;fg;gl;l ,dq;fspy; epge;jid kPwy; fz;lwpag;gl;lJ njhlh;ghf tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;bAs;sjhy; jq;fs; iftrKs;s mry; Mtzq;fSld; 08.10.2018 md;W godp rhh; Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; rhh; Ml;rpahpd; Kd;ghf M[uhFk;gb Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

¶37

From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear as crystal 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 impuged order is flawed and unsustainable. In my opinion, though the impugned order is merely a show cause notice without any clear grounds of violations, responding to it would be futile exercise and an empty formality.

¶38

5/10

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶41

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai Gounder and others Vs The Secretary to Government, Land Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai report in 2010-5-L.W.289 in support of his case. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the said case held as follows:

¶42

"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 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."

¶43

In the aforesaid case even when there was a condition for seeking permission before sale, the Hon'ble Division Bench, on the facts of the case, held against the respondents.

¶44

9. In the present case, the assignment is of the year 1990. As per

¶45

the terms and conditions of the assignment order, the assignees were

¶46

6/10

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶49

forbidden from alienating the property within 10 years of the assignment. The petitioner in the writ petition purchased the property on 16.03.2007, well beyond the stipulated period of ten years. Therefore, I find no violation of the said term of the assignment order.

¶50

10. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that even if the assigned lands were sold beyond 10 years, permission for sale was mandatory. The said contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced. I have gone through the assignment order in the present case and I find that no such condition is imposed. In my view, in the absence of any such condition in the assignment order, the submission does not merit consideration. At this stage, it would be relevant to note here that the respondents issued the impugned show cause notice after lapse of almost a decade of the execution of the sale deed dated 16.03.2007. As absolutely no reasons are stated for the delay, in my view even on this ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the impugned order is untenable and hence set aside.

¶51

7/10

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶54

11. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents prayed that the matter may be remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration, While it is well settled that the respondents cannot improve their case through the counter, it is also significant that no grounds for violation of the assignment order are cited in the counter. As such, I am not inclined to accede to the request of the learned Government Advocate.

¶55

12. In view of the above discussions, the impugned communication is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. It goes without saying that it is always open to the respondents to take action for cancellation of assignment, as and when credible materials and grounds arise. 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 petitions are closed.

¶56

28.11.2024

¶57

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No CM

¶58

8/10

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶61

TO:

¶62

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶63

2.The Sub Collector, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶64

3.The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶65

9/10

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018

¶68

N.MALA, J.

¶69

¶70

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.25270 of 2018 and WMP(MD)Nos. 22872 of 2018 and 13750 of 2023

¶71

Dated: 28.11.2024

¶72

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Saraswathi, W/O. Periyasamy, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathi, W/O. Periyasamy, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendran Vs The District Collector

P.Emayaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ramzan Beevi Vs The Tahsildar

E.v.a.Vallimuthu Primary Vs the Union of India

A.Veerasamy Konar, Vs the District Collector

Selvi Vs The District Revenue Officer