Standing orders for assignment of land to the family members of ex-servicemen not complied.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the matter was listed for direction, in view of the fact that the question involved being the same for consideration of stay as well as for the disposal of the writ petition, by consent of both the counsel appearing for either parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

2. The husband of the present petitioner was serving under the Indian Air Force. On 31.3.1967, the land measuring 3.89 acres in No.7, Karanipuduchery, Chengalpattu Taluk was assigned in favour of late Madhavan, the husband of the present petitioner free of cost for his meritorious service during wars. In 1988, proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Tahsildar, Chingleput for transfer of patta in favour of the late husband of the petitioner. While matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 10733 of 1993 was filed by the late husband of the petitioner for a direction to remove all the encroachments made by the Forest Department. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the husband of the petitioner having died, the present petitioner was substituted. In the aforesaid writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that in lieu of the original land assigned, the respondents were prepared to offer equivalent land in Survey No.67 (3.179 acres) and Survey No.66 (area of 72 cents). Recording the aforesaid undertaking of the respondents, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the earlier writ petition with the following observation:

"I further direct the first respondent to make necessary changes in the order of assignment granted to the petitioners as early as on 31.3.1967 made in D.C.No.78/76 and issue necessary patta to that effect to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order and also to provide necessary access to the lands assigned."

3. By Order dated 24.3.1999 a further direction was also given that necessary patta should be issued within twelve weeks. As the aforesaid direction was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.848 of 1999. In the said contempt application the Assistant Settlement Officer filed an affidavit stating that no claim was pending relating to the disputed land in question and on 8.3.2000 this Court passed an order in Contempt Application No.848/99 directing the Collector to pass appropriate orders for assignment to grant patta within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, as the direction was not complied with, the petitioner was again forced to file Contempt Application No.523 of 2000. Subsequently, the present petitioner did not press the contempt application and has filed the present writ petition instead to issue appropriate direction.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In the counter affidavit, the respondents, admitting the basic facts have stated that the land proposed to be assigned to the petitioner is very valuable and therefore, the petitioner does not have the right to claim the assignment of the land free of cost.

5. It is true that the cost of the land which was originally assigned to the petitioner was less at the relevant time and obviously the value of land has gone up in the meantime. That however, does not justify the action of the Government in refusing to assign the land unless the amount is paid.

6. For the aforesaid purpose, reliance can be placed upon Clause 24 of the Standing Order, which is to the following effect:

"24. Assignment of land to ex-servicemen—(1) Provisions under the old scheme:— Under the assignment policy of Government as enunciated in 1949, ex-servicemen who did not possess more than 5 acres of wet land or more than 10 acres of dry land were eligible for cost free assignment of that extent of land which together with the land already owned by them made up a total extent of 5 acres wet or 10 acres dry in each case. The assignment was subject to the same terms and conditions as those which appli