The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the Bhoodan document disclosing the donation, the marketable title deeds of the mortgaged land, and the bonafide nature of the representations in determining the validity of the notification and the ethical implications of receiving a donation through compulsion.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that he is the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner herein who is none other than his mother. He submits that the father of the petitioner viz., K.N. Ramasamy, was originally owning seven acres of land in survey No.321/1, near Veerapandi Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District, now Tiruppur District and he was in possession and enjoyment of the above property till he donated one acre of land to the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board. He additionally added that the petitioner's father donated one acre out of seven acres of land in Survey No.321/1, to the Bhoodan Board which was formed by the late Vinoba Gandhi. After, the donation the petitioner's father mortgaged the remaining six acres with the Tiruppur Co-operative land mortgaged Bank Limited in the year of 1962 by way of registered mortgaged deed in document No.188 of 1962 and Document No.2227 of 1962.

2. He submits that to the great shock and surprise of the petitioner's father the 5th respondent herein by a Notification dated 19.08.1965 declared the entire extent of 7 acres land in Survey No.321/1, Veerapandi Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District as the land vest with the State Bhoodan Board. He submits that the aggrieved by the action of the 5th respondent herein declaring the entire extent of 7 acres of land in Survey No.321/1, the petitioner father submitted repeated objections to the respondents herein from the year of 1966 to 1967 stating that he had donated only one acre of land.

3. He submits that though the declaration by the 5th respondent was dated 19.08.1965, the father of the petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. He submits that with the bonofide intention and legitimate expectation that the 5th respondent will drop the declaration. The petitioner's father executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner dated 17.12.1967 settling the six acres of land comprised in Survey No.321/1, in Veerapandi Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District and he submits that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the same right from the date of settlement. He submits that the petitioner and her father have jointly and severally submitted the objections pursuant to the declaration made by the 5th respondent herein and they have also requested the respondent herein not to issue patta to third parties based on the declaration of the 5th respondent dated 19.081965.

4. He submits that the respondent Bhoodan Board based on the representations of the petitioner and her father sent a communication dated 19.07.1970 stating that whether the petitioner was willing to give alternative land instead of land donated which is comprised in Survey No.321/1. He submits that subsequently in receipt of the above communication the petitioner also expressed her willingness to offer alternative site to an extent of seven acres. However, the respondents herein have not responded properly for the above representations.

5. He submits that in the above said circumstances the petitioner had no other option but to make repeated representations to the respondents to exempt 6 acres of land from the notification dated 19.08.1965. He submits that the petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.5522 of 2012 for Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the representations made by the petitioner dated 06.11.2010 and 24.01.2011 in accordance with law withing in a reasonable time limit fixed by this Court and the same was disposed by this Court on 14.03.2011 directing the respondents to consider their representation. He submits that pursuant to the same on 21.06.2012 the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order thereby rejecting his representation. In this circumstances, the above writ petition is filed.

6. The respondent has filed counter statement and resisted the above writ petition. The 2ndrespondent submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.144, Rural D