Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA
M.N.C. David
Versus
The Commissioner, Land Administration & Others
W.P. No. 11558 of 1987
Decided On :Decided on : 11-02-1997
ASSIGNMENT OF LAND - FREE ASSIGNMENT OF LAND TO EX-SERVICEMEN - CANCELLATION OF ASSIGNMENT - GROUNDS - NON-RESIDENCE OF ASSIGNEE IN VILLAGE - INCOME FROM PENSION - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS - CONDITIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT - PERSONAL CULTIVATION - SERVICE PERSONNEL - RETIREMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, was granted free assignment of land under a Government scheme for Ex-Servicemen. The assignment was later cancelled by the authorities on the grounds that the petitioner was not a resident of the village where the land was situated and that he was receiving a pension as an Ex-Serviceman. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order, arguing that the conditions for cancellation were not applicable to him as he was assigned the land while he was still in service and that he was not required to personally cultivate the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the assignment was not justified. It interpreted the Government orders relating to the assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen and found that there was no requirement for the assignee to be a resident of the village where the land was situated or to personally cultivate the land. The court also held that the pension received by the petitioner was not an income that would disqualify him from the free assignment of land.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the assignment of land to the petitioner was justified. 2. Whether the conditions for cancellation of assignment were applicable to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the assignment was not justified because: 1. The Government orders relating to the assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen did not require the assignee to be a resident of the village where the land was situated or to personally cultivate the land. 2. The pension received by the petitioner was not an income that would disqualify him from the free assignment of land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the respondents cancelling the assignment of land to the petitioner.
1. The Prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ, calling for the records relating to the 1st respondents order in his Ref. No. Pa. Mu (E) 24802/82 (R.P. 16/82), dated 25.6.1987. which confirmed the 2nd respondents order in R.C. No. 21407/82, dated 29.1.1982 and the respondents order in R.C. No. 7810/80-K, dated 25.6.1980 and quash the same.
2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit of the petitioner. He has stated that he was serving in Indian Armed Forces for about 28 years. He was a subhedar, a non-gazetted rank and in the year 1969 stationed at Nepal Liason Group at Katmandu. He retired from service on 6.1.1970. He was conferred an honorary rank of Captain at the time of his retirement without any pecuniary benefit. Under the policy of Central and State Government free assignment of Government land was granted in favour of the Army personnel, both serving men and Ex-Service men according to their eligibility. Under the said scheme the personnel were granted free assignments of an extent of 5 acres dry and 2 1/2 acres of wet land. The petitioner while he was in service in the Indian Army applied for the free assignment of land in his favour. The State Government was pleased to assign in his favour poramboke dry land of an extent of 5 acres in S. No. 564/1 in Dichivakka, village in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpattu District in and by an order P.C. No. 479, dated 1.11.1969 by the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk. The Form ‘D’ Patta was also issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar on 1.12.1969.
3. The petitioner has taken possession of the land assigned to him immediately. He has spent about Rs. 50,000/- to bring the land under cultivation. He toiled in the land to make it for irrigation and cultivation. He dug well, installed pump set and devoted his own life and energy and spent all the resources and benefits he received on his retirement from the Indian Army. The petitioner has been doing personal cultivation in the lands besides engaging casual labourers to assist him. The petitioner also had availed of the various loan facilities to improve the fertility of the land and to reclaim it fully.
4. On the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar the 3rd respondent passed an order in his Reference R.C. No. 7810/80-K, dated 25.8.1980 purporting to cancel the order of assignment in favour of the petitioner. The reasons for such consideration were that the petitioner is a non-resident of the village where the assigned land is situated; that the petitioner is getting an income from his pension as Ex-Service men; and therefore the petitioner is not eligible to get a free assignment of land. Against the said order of cancellation of assignment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent: District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District and pointed out that there is no condition either in the scheme of the G.O. or the order of assignment requiring the assignee to be the resident of village or to compel a personal cultivation. Further the pension received by the petitioner as an Ex-Serviceman is not an income concerned for the free assignment of land in favour of the petitioner. He has also brought to the notice of the authority that the free assignment was made not to an Ex-Serviceman after his retirement, but in favour of a serving personnel, while he was in service in the army. However, the second respondent overlooking all these aspects, in his order Ref. R.C. No. 214087/80-B3, dated 29.1.1982 dismissed the petitioners appeal and confirmed the third respondents cancellation order. The reasons given by the second respondent for dismissing the appeals was that the petitioner is not eligible for free assignment under S.O. 15(3)(2) (ii) as he was not landless poor at the time of assignment by reason of his getting pension of Rs. 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
