Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
The District Collector, Sivagangai & Others – Appellants
Versus
M. Saleem Baig – Respondent
W.A.(MD) No.1440 of 2023 & C.M.P. (MD) No.11118 of 2023
Decided On : 07-09-2023
assignment - landless poor - G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue dated 14.05.1973 - The court discussed the assignment of land to the landless poor under the Scheme of Government, the conditions of assignment, the cancellation of assignment without notice to the respondent, and the validity of the cancellation order. The court relied on the principle that an un-communicated order is a nullity in law and held that the cancellation of assignment without serving the order on the respondent was in utter disregard to the settled law. The court emphasized that an illegal order cannot be permitted to deprive a person's valid title and that the revenue officials have no right to interfere with the rights of the assignee to hold the land as an absolute owner.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent made an application for assignment of land under the category of landless poor. The assignment was cancelled without notice to the respondent, and the respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the un-communicated cancellation order is null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of assignment without serving the order on the respondent was in utter disregard to the settled law. The court held that an illegal order cannot be permitted to deprive a person's valid title and that the revenue officials have no right to interfere with the rights of the assignee to hold the land as an absolute owner.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the cancellation of assignment without notice to the respondent and the rights of the assignee to hold the land as an absolute owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that an un-communicated order is a nullity in law and emphasized that an illegal order cannot be permitted to deprive a person's valid title.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the court found no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for. There was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18635 of 2013, dated 01.08.2022.)
S.S. Sundar, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.08.2022, allowing the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.18635 of 2013, filed by the respondent.
2. Heard Mr.D.Sachikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. By consent of both sides, this Writ Appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:- The respondent made an application for assignment of land under the category of landless poor under the Scheme of Government for assignment of dry or waste land to the landless poor. It is stated by the respondent in this appeal that the then Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Sivagangai, by proceedings dated 31.03.1969 assigned an extent of 3.33 acres in S.No.20/1 and an extent of 1.67 Acres in S.No.225/5 in Mangudi Village, Sivagangai Taluk free of costs after following the formalities. Patta passbook was also issued to the petitioner pursuant to assignment on 13.08.1975 vide patta No.692. It is admitted by the respondent that the assignment was on condition that the respondent should bring the land under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment. It is the specific case of the respondent that he started doing cultivation by planting cashew nut trees and other trees. It is also stated by the respondent that the respondent has obtained loan from Government to reclaim and develop the land immediately after assignment. There is no dispute that the petitioner was paying the kist for the assigned land.
5. It appears that by order impugned in the Writ Petition, the assignment was cancelled on 26.03.1997 without issuing any notice to the respondent. Since the respondent did not know about the cancellation of assignment, repeatedly requested the appellants to issue UDR patta through his representations. After coming to know about the order of cancellation, the respondent made a representation on 22.08.1994 to the first respondent to furnish the certified copy of the cancellation order said to have been passed on 26.03.1979 and the concerned Tahsildar had even returned the requisition on the ground that the cancellation order number was not mentioned in the representation. The respondent at one point of time entertained a doubt even about the existence of the order dated 26.03.1979 as he could not get the copy of the order.
6. Earlier when the respondent requested the revenue officials to furnish the copy of the order cancelling the assignment, a reply was given by the District Collector informing the respondent that due to the administrative reasons, the copy of the order dated 26.03.1979 cancelling assignment could not be furnished. Therefore, the respondent was forced to file a Writ Petition before the Principal Bench in W.P.No.34017 of 2003 for issuance of the Writ of Mandamus, to furnish the certified copy of the order dated 26.03.1979, cancelling the assignment in favour of the petitioner in 1969. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18.09.2013 without prejudice to the rights of the respondent herein and with liberty to him to agitate the matter in a separate proceedings to protect his possession. It is pertinent to mention that this Court recorded the reason that the proceedings relating to cancellation of assignment could not be furnished because as per the statement of the appellants herein all the files relating to the subject matter were destroyed due to efflux of time. Therefore, it was in the said circumstances, the respondent filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.18634 of 2018 for issuance a declaration to declare the un-communicated order of dated 26.03.1979 is null and void and consequently to direct the app
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 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 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.
A lawful land assignment cannot be canceled without due process, including notice, as unsupported allegations cannot validate actions contrary to established rights.
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
