2021 Supreme(Mad) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
P. Meenakshi & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Industries, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 14319 of 2018 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 12970, 12971, 22646 & 13550 of 2018
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Point of law: Petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to property when the assignment had been given by the authority with their eyes wide open. After allowing the petitioners to enjoy the lands for many years when suddenly an adverse decision is taken against their constitutional right, the petitioners need to be imperatively and mandatorily heard. Even if the authority wrongly granted assignment, it cannot be rectified behind the back of the beneficiaries of the assignment.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Cancellation of Pattas – Case of the petitioners is that the lands in Survey in Pannamuppanpatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District have been in possession of the petitioners and their ancestors since 1942. – The lands have been used for agricultural purpose and have been cultivated by the petitioners for many decades. – The Government has brought about a scheme for distribution of lands for the landless agricultural labourers and the lands have been assigned to several landless poor to an extent of half an acre minimum and two acres maximum to each of the poor landless agricultural family. – In furtherance of the scheme of assigning lands to the landless poor agricultural labourers, the petitioners herein were given patta by proceedings by the competent authority and since then the petitioners have been paying all the taxes pertaining to the lands in their possession. – According to the petitioners, the lands have been used for Jasmine cultivation for a period of 40 years and they have also obtained loan to the extent of three lakhs rupees for sustaining their Jasmine cultivation. – The loans have been obtained from the Indian Bank, Usilampatti, Madurai. – Petitioners had approached the first respondent in 2015 complaining that illegally the respondents 9 and 10 had been carrying out quarrying operations in portions of the land assigned to them. – Having received no reply in response to the complaint, one of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(MD) seeking a direction to forbear the respondents 9 and 10 from quarrying in the lands which were assigned to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Writ Petition was disposed of. – When the Writ Petition was pending, the second respondent appeared to have issued an order directing the subordinate official to cancel the patta granted to the petitioners. – The second respondent's order directing cancellation being passed behind the back of the petitioners in order to favour and accommodate the interest of the quarry operators, namely, 9 and 10 respondents, this Court was approached.

Finding of court: Assignment of the land itself is now sought to be re-called on the ground that the lands were originally given on lease to the quarry operators and now to respondents 9 and 10 for the said purpose. – Therefore, it is all the more reason that the petitioners ought to have been called for an enquiry and then a decision could have been taken in the matter one way or the other. – It is certainly not open to the authorities to recall the order originally passed in favour of the petitioners, behind their back subsequently – Court also finds that there appears to be a dispute as to whose control or possession the lands are with, which dispute cannot be resolved in a writ jurisdiction. – It is also a fact that the licence period had expired in 2017 and whether the lands retained the same character placing a bar on issuing patta for the landless poor as on date is to be considered afresh by the authority. – Petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to property when the assignment had been given by the authority with their eyes wide open. – After allowing the petitioners to enjoy the lands for many years when suddenly an adverse decision is taken against their constitutional right, the petitioners need to be imperatively and mandatorily heard. – Even if the authority wrongly granted assignment, it cannot be rectified behind the back of the beneficiaries of the assignment. – The recalling of the assignment without putting the petitioners on notice would say the least is a display of high handedness on the part of the authority concerned and in that circumstances, the impugned order has to go lock, stock and barrel. – Impugned order did not disclose whether the petitioners point of view was considered at all as they were not heard in the first place. – Moreover, the second respondent himself has recorded the factum of cultivation of the lands by the petitioners at the time when the order was passed in 2018. – What is the right of the quarry operators after the licence had expired in 2017 is an another dimension to the lis as between the petitioners and the respondents 9 and 10. – However, without going into those areas of dispute, the minimum requirement is that these petitioners need to be given an opportunity as rightly implored by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before any decision is taken in regard to the right of the petitioners to the assigned lands.

Result: Writ Petition Allowed