Allowed¶38

The Secretary to Government v. N.Rajendran

Madras HC8 Apr 2025WA/1811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-Servicemen quota land assignment cancellation upheld; Revenue Standing Orders assignment is a concession, not an absolute right; Government empowered to cancel assignment on failure to establish Ex-Servicemen identity or eligibility criteria; false documents produced for assignment; assignee owning other properties held ineligible; resumption of assigned Government land for public purposes; Tamil Nadu revenue authorities (Secretary Revenue Department, District Collector Salem, RDO Sankagiri, Thasildar Edappadi) v. N. Rajendran; WA No. 1811 of 2024, Madras High Court, decided 08-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ order dated 13.07.2022 in WP.No.6429 of 2017 set aside; Writ Appeal allowed with no costs; appellants directed to resume the land and utilise it for public purposes; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.12998 of 2024) closed.

The Secretary to Government Vs N.Rajendran — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court erred in interfering with the Government's cancellation of the land assignment granted to the respondent under the Ex-Servicemen quota. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The impugned cancellation revealed that the assignee had produced false documents for securing assignment of Government land, disqualifying him from the benefit of assignment under the Ex-Servicemen quota.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Assignment of land under the Revenue Standing Orders cannot be claimed as an absolute right; it is a concession granted by the Government to Ex-Servicemen, and a concession cannot be equated to a right.

¶32

Key takeaways

Where the assignee fails to establish his identity or comply with the eligibility criteria under the Revenue Standing Orders, the Government is empowered to cancel the assignment; no infirmity was found in the cancellation order.ratio¶32
The respondent was also found to be owning other properties, and for all reasons was held ineligible to secure assignment under the Ex-Servicemen quota.ratio¶36
Observation that, given skyrocketing market values, the Government is expected to be cautious in assigning land free of cost under the Revenue Standing Orders.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar, JJ.) allowed the State's Writ Appeal and set aside the Single Judge's writ order dated 13.07.2022 in W.P.No.6429 of 2017, thereby restoring the cancellation of Government land assigned to the respondent under the Ex-Servicemen quota. Held: assignment of land under the Revenue Standing Orders is a concession, not an absolute right, and a concession cannot be equated to a right; where the assignee fails to establish his identity/eligibility as an Ex-Servicemen, the Government is empowered to cancel the assignment. The cancellation order disclosed that the assignee had produced false documents to secure the assignment, and he was also found to own other properties; he was therefore ineligible for assignment under the Ex-Servicemen quota. The competent authorities were directed to resume the land and utilise it for public purposes. Appeal allowed with no costs; connected CMP.No.12998 of 2024 closed.

¶1

WA No. 1811 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

WA No. 1811 of 2024 and

¶8

CMP.No.12998 of 2024

¶9

The Secretary To Government Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George, Chennai-09

¶10

2.The District Collector Salem District, Salem

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Sankagiri, Salem District

¶12

4.The Thasildar, Edappadi Taluk, Edappadi, Salem District

¶13

Appellant(s)

¶14

¶15

N.Rajendran S/o.Nattarayan,

¶16

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

¶17

WA No. 1811 of 2024

¶18

Amman Koil Street, Chettimankurichi Village and Post, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

To set aside the order dated 13.07.2022 made in WP.No. 6429 of 2017.

¶22

For Appellant(s): Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arivazhagan

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶25

Under assail is the Writ order dated 13.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.6429 of

¶26

¶27

The land assigned in the favour of the petitioner by the

¶28

Government under Ex-Servicemen quota was cancelled on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish his identity as Ex-Servicemen by producing necessary documents. That apart, the impugned order cancelling the assignment reveals that the appellant has produced false documents for securing assignment of Government land. Therefore, he is not entitled to avail the benefit of assignment of land under the Ex-Servicemen quota as per the Revenue Standing orders.

¶29

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

¶30

WA No. 1811 of 2024

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the petitioner served as a Soldier in the Indian Defence Services. However, the pleadings itself raises a doubt, since the respondent has not stated the clear particulars about the services rendered by him in the Indian Army and his cadre. In the absence of providing clear details regarding the services rendered by a person in the Indian Army, the Government cannot entertain an application for assignment of the Government lands under the Ex-Servicemen quota, as per the Revenue Standing Orders.

¶32

Assignment of land under the Revenue Standing Orders cannot be claimed as an absolute right. It is a concession granted by the Government to Ex-Servicemen. A concession cannot be equated to a right. In the present case, it is a conditional assignment, admittedly. That being so, the respondent is bound to establish his eligibility as per the Revenue Standing Orders. In the event of failure to establish the identity or comply with the eligibility criteria, the Government is empowered to cancel the assignment. Therefore, in this case, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the Government order cancelling the assignment of Government lands.

¶33

On account of the fact that the market value of the lands are sky rocketing, the Government is expected to be cautious in assigning land at free of cost under the Revenue Standing orders. That apart, it is found that the respondent is owning other properties. Therefore, he is not eligible to avail the

¶34

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

¶35

WA No. 1811 of 2024

¶36

benefits of assignment of Government lands under the Ex-Servicemen quota. For all these reasons, the respondent is found to be ineligible to secure assignment under the Ex-Servicemen quota.

¶37

The appellant/competent authorities are directed to resume the land and utilise the same for public purposes.

¶38

Thus, the Writ order dated 13.07.2022 made in WP.No. 6429 of 2017 is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.) 08-04-2025

¶40

¶41

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

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

¶43

WA No. 1811 of 2024

¶44

¶45

1.N.Rajendran S/o.Nattarayan, Amman Koil Street, Chettimankurichi Village and Post, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District