SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Pooja Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
The Collector of Nilgiris, Ootacamend & Others – Respondents
WP No. 13861 of 2017 & WMP Nos. 15046, 15047 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:H. Karthik Seshadri for M/s. Iyer and Thomas, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, C. Jayaprakash, Government Advocate, R5 to R9, A. Immanuel, Advocate.

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 assignments and resume the land.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Land Assignment - Section 12(2) and 12(3) of Revenue Standing Order Volume I - The court discussed the assignment conditions of government land to the 'Depressed Class People' and the violation of these conditions by the original assignee and subsequent buyers. The court highlighted the purpose and object of the assignment, emphasizing that the land cannot be sold to non-depressed class people, and the government is empowered to cancel such assignments and resume the land.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a movie producer and actress, purchased a piece of property which was later subject to a dispute regarding its assignment and subsequent sale. The court was petitioned to quash the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kothagiri.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no infirmity in the proceedings initiated and concluded by the competent authorities.

Issues: The issues revolved around the assignment conditions of government land, the fraudulent sale of the property, and the rights of the original assignee and subsequent buyers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the purpose and object of the assignment of land to the 'Depressed Class People', highlighting the violation of assignment conditions and the government's power to cancel such assignments and resume the land.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records connected with the order dated 21.03.2016 made in RCA No.A3/707/2015 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.)

The order passed by the third respondent-Tahsildar, Kothagiri in proceedings dated 21.03.2016, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that she is the Movie Producer and Actress based out of Mumbai. She had purchased a piece of property measuring about 26.12 cents in Survey No.578/10 in Jagatha Village, Nilgiris District for a valuable consideration. The Sale Deed was registered under Document No.1340/1999 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Coonoor.

3. The petitioner states that the fourth respondent clandestinely managed to get his name included in chitta in respect of RS No.645/9 corresponding to Survey No.578/10.

4. The Revenue Authorities realised their mistakes and removed his name from the records. The fourth respondent subsequently filed complaint that he is the Original Assignee of the subject property and he had not transacted the subject property. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed WP No.37815 of 2015 and this Court issued direction to the Authorities to consider the application submitted by the fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders.

5. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Tahsildar, Kothagiri issued notice to the parties and the respondents 4 to 9 were represented through one Mr.K.Rajkumar, Advocate at Coonoor, whose detailed address is also found in the impugned order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that no notice was issued to the writ petitioner nor she has authorised any Lawyer to represent her case before the Tahsildar, Coonoor. That apart, the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property for sale consideration and therefore, her interest is to be protected.

7. It is contended that there is a condition not to alienate the property on completion of 10 years from the date of alienation and more-so, it is not clearly stated that the land cannot be sold to ''Non Depressed Class People''.

8. In view of the facts, the case of the petitioner is to be considered and based on the Sale Deed executed by the Original Assignee in favour of the writ petitioner.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 to 9 objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Sale Deed in favour of the writ petitioner was fraudulently executed. The fourth respondent Mr.P.Kuppan was the Original Assignee and respondents 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of the Original Assignee Mr.P.Kuppan. Respondents 5 to 9 belong to Scheduled Caste Community and as per the assignment condition, even the father of the respondents 5 to 9 is not empowered to sell the property to any ''Non Depressed Class People''.

10. In view of the fact that the sale was fraudulent, respondents 5 to 9 have already proposed to initiate action challenging the same.

11. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents 1 to 3 relying on the counter had stated that as per the Collector''s proceedings dated 09.08.1978 an extent of one acre of land was assigned to one Mr.P.Kuppan (fourth respondent herein), S/o.Ponnan in old Survey No.578/10 of Jagathala Village of Kothagiri Taluk, Nilgiris District as conditional assignment.

12. As per the condition No.23 laid down in the assignment, the Assignee has no right to sell the Government land to other Caste and it reads as under:-

“If the land is alienated or it is attached and sold by any legal process it shall be liable to resumption by the Collector or by any Officer authorised by him withut payment of compensation whatever”.

13. Pertinently, the Government land assigned to the ''Depressed Class'' should be cultivated by the Assignee himself or the members of his family or with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top