Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
S. Vijayakumar & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration Land Administration Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 14418 of 2010 & 24148 of 2011
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Assignment - Land Allotment - Revenue Standing Order 15 (41) - Summary of Acts and Sections: RSO 15 (41)(4), Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the assignment of land to depressed class persons under Revenue Standing Order 15 (41)(4) and its interpretation. The court also considered the constitutional validity of the violation of conditional assignment and its impact on subsequent purchasers. The judgment highlights the legal provisions of RSO 15 (41)(4) and its application in the case, emphasizing the rights of innocent purchasers and the spirit of the assignment scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The assignee, a member of the depressed class, was assigned land in 1997, which was subsequently purchased by the father of the purchasers. The purchasers, also from the depressed class, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. The 1st respondent cancelled the assignment and directed the lands to be resumed by the Government. The assignee challenged the cancellation, while the purchasers sought restoration of possession and patta.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial assignment to Muthan, a depressed class person, was not disturbed by authorities. The subsequent alienations to non-depressed class persons were not acted upon by the authorities. The court held that the cancellation of the assignment to the assignee was justified, but the resumption of the land from the purchasers was detrimental to the interests of depressed class persons.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the assignment, subsequent alienations, and the rights of innocent purchasers from the depressed class. The court also considered the application of RSO 15 (41)(4) and the impact of the cancellation and resumption orders on the rights of the assignee and the purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the assignment to the assignee was justified, but the resumption of the land from the innocent purchasers, who were also from the depressed class, was against the spirit of the assignment scheme and detrimental to the interests of depressed class persons. The court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction to set aside the resumption order and directed the restoration of possession and issuance of patta to the purchasers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the assignee's petition but allowed the purchasers' petition, setting aside the resumption order and directing the restoration of possession and issuance of patta to the purchasers. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayers: W.P. No.14418 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.G2/7446/09 dated 14.5.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the grant of assignment and patta issued in favour of the petitioner with respect to the extent of 1.19.0 hectares in S. No.2/8, Melchettipattu village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
W.P. No.24148 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 in Rc.No.G2/7446/09 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Common Order:
Assailing the order passed by the 1st respondent, while the petitioners in W.P. No.24148/11 question the act of the 1st respondent in cancelling the patta granted to the petitioners in respect of the lands, which had initially been assigned in favour of the original assignee, which was subsequently purchased by the father of the petitioners in W.P. No.24148/11 after a passage of five decades, the petitioner in W.P. No.14418/10 has questioned that portion of the order in and by which the 1st respondent had cancelled the assignment granted in his favour with regard to the very same lands, which were earlier assigned to the original assignee in W.P. No.24148/11.
2. For the sake of convenience the petitioners in W.P. No.24148/2011 will be referred to as ‘purchasers’ and the petitioner in W.P. No.14418/10 will be referred to as ‘assignee’.
Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.14418 of 2010 :-
3. It is the case of the assignee that he belongs to the depressed class of landless poor and earning his livelihood as an agricultural labour. Coming to know of Revenue Standing Order 15 (41) in and by which the government allots land to the depressed class persons, the assignee applied for allotment of land and, accordingly, his case was considered by the 4th respondent, viz., Tahsildar, and was assigned land to an extent of 1.19.0 hectares vide proceedings dated 12.3.1997, with specific condition that the said lands shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years. The assignee was also issued with a separate patta in his name. On and from the said date, the assignee had been cultivating the lands and is in lawful and peaceful possession of the same without any encumbrance and paying the dues to the Government regularly and the name of the assignee is also reflected in the revenue records and adangal extracts since the year 1997.
4. It is the further case of the assignee that the father of the purchasers, claiming to have purchased the above referred to land by way of two sale deeds dated 24.11.1982 from one Annamalai, filed a petition before the 3rd respondent to cancel the patta assigned in favour of the assignee and to issue fresh patta in the name of the father of the purchasers and the 3rd respondent, after issue of notice called for the records from the 4th respondent to which the 4th respondent has stated that the files are not available. The 3rd respondent, on the basis of the materials available, on an erroneous view, while cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the assignee vide proceedings dated 6.8.2008 permitted transfer patta in favour of the purchasers against which the assignee preferred appeal and the 2nd respondent, vide order dated 13.2.09, set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and restored the patta granted in favour of the assignee and the assignment of lands were held in-tact. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the purchasers filed revision, belatedly, after a period of five years, before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent passed the impugned order directing the 2nd respondent to resume the land in favour of the Government for assigning the same to eligible depressed class persons, which is in clear violation of the Reven
The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorities must establish that land is assigned with a condition prohibiting alienation before initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned....
The exercise of suo moto power under Section 166-B of the Act should be within a reasonable period, and the cancellation of assignment pattas after a long lapse of time is contrary to the law.
The assignment of government land to the landless poor must strictly adhere to the assignment rules, including verification of community and obtaining permission from competent authorities for land s....
The definition of 'assigned land' under the Assigned Lands Act requires an absolute non-alienation condition, which was not present in the original assignment.
The absence of a non-alienation clause in the original land assignment means it cannot be classified as assigned land under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, allowing for its registration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
