Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
K.S. Jarina - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. (MD). No. 9335 of 2013 & WMP(MD). No. 5028 of 2016 & MP(MD). No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 03-08-2022
assignment - cancellation of assignment patta - 1965-1973 - summary of acts and sections: Revenue Standing Order No.15, G.O.Ms.No.2555 Revenue dated 14.05.1973 - The court discussed the cancellation of assignment patta granted in 1965 and the legal provisions related to the time limit for cancellation of assignment patta, misrepresentation, and want of authority for assignment.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the cancellation of an assignment patta granted in 1965, based on the grounds that the land was not brought into cultivation and the conditions of the assignment were violated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the assignment patta after a period of 40 years was not legally sustainable, and the reasons for cancellation were found to lack authority and merit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the cancellation of the assignment patta, the time limit for cancellation, and the cultivation of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assignment patta granted prior to 1973 cannot be cancelled beyond a period of three years from the date of assignment, and even on the ground of misrepresentation, the assignment cannot be cancelled after a lapse of few decades.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in No.G2/26221/06, dated 16.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way dispossessing the petitioner of her land in Survey No.193/2 of Keelayur Village group of villages, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order under which the assignment patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner's father-in-law was cancelled.
2. The petitioner's father-in-law namely Mohamed Abuthahir was granted free assignment for an extent of 5 acres in Survey No.193 on 15.04.1965. The revenue records also got mutated in his name on 20.04.1978. The Deputy Tahsildar had directed the said Mohamed Abuthahir to pay market value of the property which was assigned in his favour. The said payment was remitted by the Mohamed Abuthahir on 26.11.1979 and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai has confirmed the order of assignment. The revenue patta was granted in favour of the said Mohamed Abuthahir under Patta No.827 and he continues to pay the kist.
3. The second respondent herein had passed an order on 15.05.2006 cancelling 359 orders of assignment on the ground that erroneously Patta has been granted in favour of the Mohamed Abuthahir during the UDR proceedings. That apart, the assignee has not brought the land into cultivation for so many number of years. The second respondent further found that these lands are valuable lands and they may be required for construction of Government buildings in future. Hence, he passed an order cancelling the order of assignment, the sub-division effected and pattas granted in favour of the assignees.
4. The writ petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent herein after hearing the writ petitioner, has passed the impugned order on 16.08.2012 confirming the order passed by the second respondent herein. The first respondent has concurred with the findings of the second respondent on the ground that the condition attached to the order of assignment has been violated and the lands have not been brought under cultivation. Mere payment of kist will not prove the cultivation of the land, but it is only a corroborative evidence of ownership. This is under challenge in the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the order of assignment was originally granted free of cost, later the revenue authorities insisted upon the payment of market value of the assigned land. Once the market value is paid, thereafter the authorities cannot contend that the conditions of the order of assignment have been violated.
6. The learned counsel had further contended that the order of assignment was made in the year 1965 and cancellation proceedings have been initiated in the year 2006 after a lapse of 40 years. At this length of time, the order of assignment cannot be cancelled for whatever reason. He had further contended that the order of assignment is dated 15.04.1965 which is much prior to 1973 during which the power was granted to the revenue authorities to cancel the order of assignment even beyond a period of 3 years. This order of assignment being of the year 1965, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to cancel the order of assignment after a period of 3 years.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner has produced the kist receipts and also Adangal receipts which would clearly indicate that the land was brought under cultivation. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 were not correct in arriving at a finding that the land was not brought under cultivation. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgement of our High Court reported in 2021-1-Writ.L.R.568 (
The central legal point established in the judgment is that assignment patta granted prior to 1973 cannot be cancelled beyond a period of three years from the date of assignment, and even on the grou....
An un-communicated order is a nullity in law, and an illegal order cannot be permitted to deprive a person's valid title.
The State's power to cancel land assignments must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe, and failure to provide original assignment documentation undermines the validity of such cancellations.
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 cancellation of land assignments after 21 years was deemed illegal as the conditions of assignment conferred absolute rights post 10 years, and the reasons for cancellation were not substantiated....
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....
Violation of principles of natural justice and failure to consider objections raised in the writ petition before passing the impugned order.
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
