Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P. Dhandapani - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Land Administration, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 3628 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 26-07-2018
For the Petitioner:G. Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M/s. A. Srijayanthi, Spl GP.
The assignment of land to depressed class people comes with specific conditions, and any violation of these conditions can result in cancellation of the assignment.
Headnote:
Land Assignment - Cancellation of Assigned Land - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of a land assigned to depressed class people, which was subsequently sold to the petitioner. The revenue records showed the land as patta land, but the Revenue Divisional Officer canceled the patta without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The court repeatedly gave the petitioner opportunities to present their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was assigned to depressed class people and could only be transferred to the same community. The court held that the petitioner's purchase of the land was illegal and in violation of the assignment conditions imposed by the government.
Issues: Ownership of the assigned land, legality of the petitioner's purchase, cancellation of patta, and enforcement of assignment conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The land was assigned to depressed class people and could only be transferred to the same community. Any violation of the assignment conditions would result in cancellation of the assignment. The court emphasized the need to protect government lands from encroachment.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's claim and directed the authorities to initiate action against encroachers and evict them from the land.
1. The order dated 22.01.2013 issued by the 1st respondent in respect of the cancellation of the assigned land is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The claim of the writ petitioner to confirm the assignment before the first respondent has been negatived. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The writ petitioner states that the property admeasuring 1.72 acre comprised in S.No.14/1, Sorandai Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District originally belonged to one Puduran and from whom one Muthu purchased by virtue of registered sale deed dated 05.09.1975. The said Mr.Muthu executed a settlement deed dated 05.07.1985 in favour of his Son Kannan. The petitioner purchased 1.72 acre from the said Kannan by sale deed dated 22.01.2008. The balance 1 acre was settled by the said Kannan in the name of his grandson Naveen Kumar and who sold the said portion of the land to one Mr.Raveendran and from whom the petitioner purchased the said land by way of a sale deed dated 25.06.2008. With these documents, the writ petitioner claims that he is the sole and absolute owner of the property measuring 2.72 acres in Survey No.41/1 and the revenue records for the past 40 years are showing the property as patta lands. The property also continued to be patta land under the UDR scheme. The petitioner claims that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interruption. The petitioner states that he had plotted out the above said property, sold it to several persons and all of them are put into the possession of the said property. As per the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette issued in the year 1953 for the Tiruvannamalai District, only three survey numbers have been set apart as Depressed class land and the subject survey number has not been included in the Depressed class category. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai without providing any opportunity to the writ petitioner and to the affected persons, cancelled the patta granted in the name of the petitioner in proceedings dated 30.07.2009 at the behest of some third parties, who are politically influential people. Aggrieved from and out of the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, who in turn confirmed the order in his proceedings dated 10.02.2012. Once again, the writ petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first respondent and the first respondent also rejected the petition filed by the writ petitioner in his proceedings dated 22.01.2013, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The petitioner is of an opinion that for the past more than three decades, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. This apart, the said portion of the land has not been categorized as Depressed Class category in the revenue records. All along the same is being shown as a patta land and therefore, the order impugned passed by the respondents which prevails and contrary to the legal records available.
5. Initially, the matter was listed for hearing on 21.06.2018. At request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned after one week. Again, the case was listed for further hearing on 26.06.2018. On that day, the respective parties commenced their arguments and the Court requested the learned Government Pleader to produce the files. Accordingly, the staff from the respondent's office brought the files and the files were verified by the Court. On 04.07.2018, when the matter was posted for orders. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Once again in order to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner, the matter was listed for further consideration on 11.07.2018. On that day also, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained absent. Then, it is posted for orders on 12.07.2018 and on 16.07.2018. Thereafter, the writ petition was posted under the
