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) 2520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Gunasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Vellore & Another – Respondents
WP No. 6223 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Gobika, Advocate. For the Respondent:C. Jayaprakash, Government Advocate.

The assignment of free land patta is not an absolute right and is subject to welfare schemes and specific terms and conditions. Discrimination in extending welfare scheme benefits is unconstitutional.

Headnote:

The court referred to RSO No.15(2)(2) which specifies that land reserved for Scheduled Caste individuals need not be entered in the Prohibitive Order Book. The court also considered G.O.Ms.No.3076, Health Department dated 03.10.1952 which classified certain lands as unassessed waste dry lands and assessed waste dry lands for future special public purposes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, claimed possession of a land for which he applied for a grant of patta. The application was rejected on the ground that the land was classified as ''Leprosy Hospital''. The petitioner challenged the rejection order in a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court examined the classification of the land and found that it had been classified as ''Poramboke'' and a portion of it as ''Karisal Ground Poramboke'' and reserved for ''Depressed Class People''. The court also considered the relevant government orders and regulations regarding the assignment of land to Scheduled Caste individuals. The court concluded that the petitioner's request for the assignment of land could not be considered favorable and upheld the rejection order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assignment of free land patta is not an absolute right and is granted based on welfare schemes and specific terms and conditions. Mere submission of an application does not confer any right to claim free land patta. The competent authorities are bound to consider all applications based on merits and the terms and conditions stipulated. Occupation or encroachment of government land does not confer any right to claim patta. Discrimination in extending welfare scheme benefits is unconstitutional.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to submit a new application for grant of free land patta if eligible. All applications are to be considered without discrimination.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Na.Ka.B2/2441/2022 dated 30.12.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.)

1. The order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Tahsildar, Katpadi rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of free house site patta, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 4.02 acres of Anatheenam Poramboke Punja Lands in Survey No.331 in Aayagoundanur Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

3. The petitioner states that he is in possession of the subject land for many years. The petitioner filed civil suit in OS No.348 of 1989 for permanent injunction, which was granted in his favour against other private parties.

4. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of patta, which was not considered and the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the particular Survey Number, in which the petitioner is in occupation has been classified as ''Leprosy Hospital''.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the classification was made long before and no Hospital has been constructed so far, since the petitioner is in occupation of the said land. Thus patta may be granted in respect of the said land in favour of the writ petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents raised an objection by stating that the entire land has been classified as ''Poramboke'' and a portion of the land has been classified as ''Karisal Ground Poramboke'' and other portion of the land has been reserved for ''Depressed Class People'' for the land assigned to them based on their status such as landless agricultural labour having meagre annual income as prescribed by the Government. The S.No.331 is one among them reclassified as ''Assessed Waste Dry (D.C)''.

7. The respondents further states in paragraph-12 of the counter that as per G.O.Ms.No.3076, Health Department dated 03.10.1952 (Taluk File No.B1.8312/1952 dated 24.12.1952), the poramboke lands measuring about 25 acres in S.No.328/2, 349, 362 classified as unassessed waste dry lands and the S.No.328/1, 331, 332/1, 333, 334/2, 345/1A and 345/2 classified as assessed waste dry lands were entered in the Taluk and Village Prohibitive Order Book, as they are required for future special public purposes.

8. The petitioner has contended in ''Grounds'' that RSO No.15(2)(2), specifically bars that land reserved for Scheduled Caste need not however be entered in the Prohibitive Order Book and that his request for assignment of land being rejected is bad in law and is totally not acceptable, since such lands'' details, entries should be made in the Settlement Register and the Village Adangal as per the said section of the said R.S.O., to avoid the assignment of land to free of cost to the landless agricultural labourers, since it is required for bona fide special public purposes.

9. Unauthorised encroachments by private individuals in the lands covered by the said G.O.Ms.No.3076, Health Department dated 03.10.1952 are being treated as objectionable and penalty including Land Tax is being levied informing the encroaches that the encroached land should not be assigned to them in future.

10. Examining the above vital points, the petitioner''s request for the assignment of land in S.No.331 of Kandipedu Village covered in the said ''Government Order'' could not be considered favourable and hence was rejected in Katpadi Tahsildar''s Order in RC B2.2441/2022 dated 30.12.2022

11. Assignment of free land patta cannot be claimed as an absolute right. The said free land pattas are granted based on the Welfare Scheme, if any, in force and scrupulously following the terms and c

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