BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
Katturaja (died), K. Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Collector, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram & Others - Respondents
Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 15354 of 2017 & Crl.M.P. (MD).Nos. 10210, 10211 & 11240 of 2017
Decided On : 22-01-2018
Land Dispute - Criminal Original petition - Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C - H.S.T.A.No.112-123/1421 - Sy.No.355/2016 - Sy.No.355/10 - Sy.No.355/21 - Clause 14 of the assignment order - Government's authority to take back land - Right to enjoy property - Government poromboke land
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father was assigned a house site for construction, but the first respondent restrained the petitioner from building, citing violation of assignment conditions and potential breach of peace.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Government had not taken back the land despite alleged violations, and the legal heirs had the right to construct on the property. The first respondent's order was quashed.
Issues: Dispute over assignment conditions, authority to restrain construction, and provision of pathway for other residents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Government's authority to take back land, the right of legal heirs to enjoy property, and the obligation to provide alternative arrangements for pathway.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
1. This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/7659/2016 dated 26.10.2017.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
When the petitioner's father Katturaja was alive, the Tahsildar of Paramakudi Taluk has assigned a house site in Sy.No.355/2016 measuring 0.0063 hectares for the purpose of constructing a house, as per the order in H.S.T.A.No.112-123/1421, dated 30.04.2012. After taking possession, the petitioner's father put up a hut and lived there till his death i.e. upto 01.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner and other legal heirs of the said Katturaja succeeded to the said property and with a view to construct a R.C.C building, they have laid a foundation. At that time, the first respondent has sent his subordinates frequently and forced the petitioner not to proceed with the construction work. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(md).No.18364 of 2017. This court has passed an order on 27.09.2017, directing the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the first respondent and on such representation, the first respondent has to consider the same and pass appropriate order. He was also instructed not to take any steps to form a road in the above said survey number. Based on the said order, on 09.01.2017, the petitioner's mother has sent a representation to the Collector of Ramnad District and the same has been forwarded to the first respondent and when the petitioner was waiting for getting favourable order, the first respondent has passed an order on 31.10.2017 under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C in Na.Ka.A2/7659/2016, dated 26.10.2017, directing the petitioner to maintain status-quo in sofar as his construction of house is concerned. He also directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry before him on 03.11.2017. Hence, this petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in order to provide a pathway to the persons, who are residing in Sy.Nos.355/10 and 355/21, the Tahsildar, Paramakudi gave a report to the first respondent stating that since the petitioner's father and one Rajangam did not commence construction, as per the terms and conditions stipulated under the assignment order, even after five years, the assignment may be cancelled and a pathway may be provided through the said land. He further submitted that the petitioner's father has already put up a hut in the house site which was assigned to him and hence, the question of not complying the conditions mentioned in the assignment does not arise. He further submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner's father did not comply with the conditions mentioned in the said assignment order, as per the clause 14 of the said assignment order, it is for the Government to pass an appropriate order, but, sofar, the Government has not passed any order for taking back the land and under the said circumstances, it is not open to the first respondent to pass an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, restraining the petitioner from constructing house.
5. The learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents has submitted that the assignment order was passed on 30.04.2012 and as per the said assignment, the petitioner's father ought to have constructed a building within 12 months. Sofar, no construction has been made and hence, the first respondent is empowered to cancel the said assignment. He further submitted that since there is no pathway for the people, who are residing in Sy.Nos.355/10 and 355/21, they have made request to the Tahsildar, Paramakudi to provide a pathway and the said Tahsildar, Paramakudi, after inspecting the sites, submitted a report to the first respondent stating that in the sites allotted to the said Katturaja and Rajangam, houses have not been constructed and hence, the assignments which were given to the said persons may be cancelled and a pathway may be provided through the sai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.