Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Shajahan – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, Dindigul & Others – Respondents
Crl. O.P (MD). No. 4142 of 2020 & Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 2280 & 2282 of 2020
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Writ Petition - Land Assignment - 1902, 2011, 2012, 2016 - The court discussed the provisions of land assignment to the landless poor, the validity of assignment, and the necessity to follow assignment rules. The court highlighted the importance of verifying community and obtaining permission from competent authorities for land sales. The decision was influenced by the irregularities in the assignment process and the lack of clear proof of land cultivation by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the cancellation of land assignment granted in her favor, claiming to belong to the Scheduled Caste. The respondents contended that the assignment was irregular and violated assignment rules, as the petitioner was not in possession of the land and had not followed the necessary procedures for assignment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assignment to the petitioner was irregular and not in accordance with the assignment rules. It was established that the petitioner was not in possession of the land and had not provided clear proof of cultivation. The court upheld the cancellation of the assignment based on these findings.
Issues: Validity of land assignment, compliance with assignment rules, possession and cultivation of the land by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The assignment of government land to the landless poor must be made in accordance with the rules, including verification of community and obtaining permission from competent authorities for land sales. The petitioner failed to establish possession and cultivation of the land, leading to the confirmation of the cancellation of the assignment.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the orders of the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 in Proc. No. G2/21725/2016 dated 31.05.2017 and in Rc. No.B4/14982/2012 dated 12.08.2016 respectively and quash the same.)
1. The proceedings of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 3105.2017 dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that an extent of 0.30.0 Hects (74 cents) in S.No.619/6 of Veeranantahal Village is the subject matter of dispute. An extent of 12.31 acres in S.No.619 was reserved for depressed class people as per the revenue records of the then combined North Arcot District. An extent of 0.74.0 Hects was originally assigned in favour Suppi, wife of Koonan, who belonged to Scheduled Caste. After her death, her daughter Pudural, wife of Munisamy sold the same to the 3rd party on 13.02.2001 under the Document No.281 of 2001 S.R.O, Chengam. However, the possession was not given to the said vendees. The petitioner states that she belongs to Scheduled Caste by virtue of registered sale deed under Document No.2272 of 2001 for a valid consideration, the petitioner purchased an extent of 0.30.0 Hects and she was put in possession of the same. The petitioner applied for assignment of the said land. The order of assignment was issuued by the 4th respondent on 17.07.2012, the assignment was granted in favour of the petitioner after cancelling earlier assignment by the 3rd respondent on 14.03.2012.
3. Challenging the cancellation of assignment in order dated 14.03.2012, the vendees filed an Appeal to the 2nd respondent. Since there was no interim order and the land vested with the Government, the petitioner submitted an application and she got assignment on 17.07.2012. The assignment granted in accordance with the provisions contemplated. The assignment was granted in favour of the petitioner was not the subject matter of the Appeal. However, the 2nd respondent suo-moto cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenging the said order preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent. Since no stay was granted by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28576 of 2013 to set aside the order of the 1st respondent and to grant stay of cancellation of assignment granted in favour of the petitioner. Interim stay was granted by this Court and the writ petition was disposed of on 04.02.2015 by directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Appeal on merits within a period of three months.
4. Vendees namely Thangavel, Appal and Palani sons of Rama Gounder filed revision against the order of the 2nd respondent, rejecting their Appeal. The 1st respondent passed a common order dated 19.11.2015, rejecting the request of the vendees and remanded the case relating to the claim of the petitioner alone to be considered by the 2nd respondent afresh. Thus, the 1st respondent confirmed the assignment granted in favour of the predecessor in title of the vendors of the said Thangavel etc., on 19.11.2015 and it became final. The 2nd respondent after notice and after hearing the parties again passed an order on 12.08.2016. Thus, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 24.10.2016 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by an order dated 24.11.2016 rejected the request of stay. Again the petitioner filed W.P.No.5657 of 2017. This Court passed an order on 08.03.2017 for early disposal of the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent by order dated 31.05.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 4th respondent has rightly assigned the land in question to the eligible assignee belonging to the depressed class
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....
An un-communicated order is a nullity in law, and an illegal order cannot be permitted to deprive a person's valid title.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the assignment conditions of government land to the 'Depressed Class People' and the government's authority to cancel such a....
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....
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
