Dismissed

Muthusamy. S v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Dec 2024WP(MD)/9615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing multiple writ petitions filed by allottees seeking survey stones for land assignment plots, this court held that prayers cannot be sustained as the assignment orders were cancelled by the third respondent without the petitioners having an opportunity to challenge them first.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to challenge the Assignment Cancellation Orders dated 16.03.2023 in the manner known to law.

Muthusamy. S Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P(MD)NOs.9615 to 9632 of 2023

¶7

S.Muthusamy : Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9615 of 2023

¶8

.vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate,

¶11

Madurai.

¶12

3.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Collectorate,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional, Usilampatti,

¶15

Madurai District.

¶16

5.The Special Tahsildar(Adi-Dravidar Welfare), Tahsildar Office, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

¶17

6.M.Vetrivel :Respondents in W.P(MD)No.9615 of 2023

¶18

PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.9615 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under

¶19

Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing fifth respondent to fix the survey stone

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

for the plots assigned to the Petitioner enabling to construct house on the said plot.

¶23

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ashok Kumar in all W.Ps’ For Respondents :Mr.A.Kannan 1 to 5 Addl.Govt.Pleader in all W.Ps’ For Respondent-6 :Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah in all W.Ps’

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

These Writ Petitions are filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the fifth respondent to fix the survey stones for the plots assigned to the Petitioners to enable them to construct houses in their respective plots.

¶26

2.The Petitioners as landless poor were allotted lands in S. Nos.259/154, 136, 137, 138 and 259/B9 for the purpose of constructing houses. The Petitioners approached the Bank for loan to construct houses, but because the Government failed to allot specific portions with specific boundaries to them, the bank denied them loan. The Petitioners, therefore, approached the fifth respondent to survey the lands and to fix the survey stones for their plots so as to enable them to construct their houses. As the fifth respondent failed to initiate any action on the Petitioners’

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

representations, the Petitioners filed the above Writ Petitions for the aforesaid relief.

¶30

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, on the basis of the counter filed by the respondents submitted that assignment orders for house site pattas issued to the Petitioners’ were cancelled for non-compliance of the conditions of the assignment orders, specifically, condition No.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that in the absence of a challenge to the cancellation orders passed by the third respondent, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petitions could not be entertained.

¶31

4.In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner’s submitted that the Petitioners had no knowledge of the cancellation of assignment orders as the third respondent passed the said orders without notice to the Petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioners were therefore justified in approaching the Court for the aforesaid relief.

¶32

5.I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

6.The fact remains that the third respondent vide

¶36

orders, dated 16.3.2023 cancelled the House site assignment orders issued to the Petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of a challenge to the said cancellation orders, the prayer sought in these Writ Petitions, for survey and demarcation of plots allotted to the Petitioners cannot be sustained.

¶37

7.In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petitions, are

¶38

dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the Assignment Cancellation Orders, dated 16.03.2023, in the manner known to law. No costs.

¶39

11.12.2024

¶40

NSC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶41

vsn

¶42

¶43

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

¶44

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Madurai.

¶45

3.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Collectorate,

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

Madurai.

¶49

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 5.The Special Tahsildar(Adi-Dravidar Welfare), Tahsildar Office, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

¶50

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

N.MALA, J.

vsn

COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)NOs.9615 to 9632 of 2023

¶55

11.12.2024

¶56

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

Muthusamy. S v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthusamy. S 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

P.Suryalingam Vs The District Collector

Maasu @ Masanam Vs The District Collector

Jeyakumar .B Vs The Tahsildar

Mr.Justin Oliver, S.Thankaiyan Vs the District Collector

Sureshkanna Vs Shanthi

Velan Vs The District Collector