Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Michel Johnson – Petitioners
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Coimbatore – Respondents
W.P. No. 25200 of 2008 and M.P. No. 2 of 2008
Decided On : 22-01-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Mukunth for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi (for R1 to R4 and R7) Additional Government Pleader.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions of land assignment and the requirement to put the land to use for cultivation by any means. It also clarified the conditions for absolute ownership and the authority to cancel assignments for violation of conditions.
Headnote:
Land Assignment - Indian Air Force Personnel - Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 59 of 1961) - Section 94, Rule 5(1)(v), Rule 9(1)(iii)(a) - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, the conditions of land assignment, and the exemption for armed forces personnel from personally cultivating the land. The court highlighted the requirement of putting the land to use for cultivation by any means, the conditions for absolute ownership, and the authority to cancel assignments for violation of conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, retired Indian Air Force personnel, were assigned surplus lands in 1974. The assignments were cancelled in 1990 due to alleged non-cultivation. The petitioners contended that they had paid the entire land value and became absolute owners. They filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of assignments was legal and sustainable as the petitioners had violated the conditions of assignment by leaving the lands uncultivated. The court also noted the lack of evidence to prove continuous cultivation and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Violation of land assignment conditions, absolute ownership, cancellation of assignments, delay in filing the writ petition, lack of evidence for continuous cultivation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of assignments was justified due to the violation of conditions, and the writ petition was dismissed due to the delay in filing and lack of evidence for continuous cultivation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
1. The short fats of the case are as follows:-
The first petitioner has submitted that the second petitioner is his friend who is also affected by the common order passed by the first respondent herein. He is well acquainted with the facts of the case and he is swearing to this affidavit on his behalf as well. He has further submitted that he was employed in Indian Air Force as an Airman in the year 1963. His initial appointment was at Bangalore and thereafter, he was transferred to various places including Jam Nagar, Shillong, Tambaram and Coimbatore. He was promoted as Warrant Officer and he retired from service in the year 1994.
Similarly, the second petitioner was an Air Framing Technician in the Indian Air Force. He was appointed in the year 1953 at Ambala and after completing 18 months training, he was appointed as a Warrant Officer at No.2, N.C.C. Air Squadron, Trichy Road, Coimbatore in the year 1972. Like me, he also served at various centres across the borders of India and he was also placed at Coimbatore during the year 1974.
2. The first petitioner has further submitted that during their services at Coimbatore in and around 1974, they had the benefit of obtaining assignment of surplus lands. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore identified surplus lands and assigned few of the lands to several persons including himself and the second petitioner herein by order dated 21.12.1974 under reference No.47/MR IV/N1. Accordingly, an extent of 3.61 acres in S.F.No.36/1B was assigned to him by the first respondent under Assignment Deed No.185/ADM dated 22.04.1975. Similarly, the first respondent assigned an extent of 3.88 acres in S.F.No.38/1A in favour of the second petitioner and executed an Assignment Deed No.186/ADM dated 22.04.1975. These lands were assigned to them under the powers granted to the first respondent under Section 94 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 59 of 1961). At the time of assignment, they were working at Coimbatore and therefore his office address CPL No.261228, MT Section, AFAC, Coimbatore was taken note of by the respondents for the purpose of communication. Similarly, the second petitioner gave his address as No.556, Trichy Road, Coimbatore where he was residing then.
3. The first petitioner has further submitted that the assignment deed was issued to them under Form-F as per Rule 8(6) of the Madras Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965. The conditions adumbrated therein only stipulates that the installments should made on or before the 31st of March every year commencing from 1975-1976 and the assignment was subject to the conditions specified in the Appendix. However the conditions never stipulated that they have to personally cultivate the land to obtain peaceful title over the same. It may not be out of place here to mention that the assignment in their favour was governed by the provisions of the Madras Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965. These Rules were amended in the year 1972 and the Rules were renamed the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965 (hereinafter called the Rules). Even under the Rules enumerates certain conditions of assignment of which Rule (iv) stipulates that "the assignee shall engage himself in the direct cultivation of the land assigned". However the proviso to this Rule says: "provided that this condition shall not be applicable to persons referred to in Rule 5 (1)(v) and persons who are physically or mentally disabled, woman including widows and old persons who have no dependants or family members to do cultivation on their behalf."
4. The first petitioner has further submitted that Rule 5(1)(v) exempts a person who is or who has been a member of the armed forces including persons who had served in the Indian National Army. He has further submitted that being a Member of the armed forces, they are the petitioners are exempted to personally cultivate
