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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Seriya Pushpam – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 2805, 2890 of 2021, C.M.P. Nos. 18470, 19440 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A. Selvendran, G. Thilagavathy, B. Balaji.
For the Respondents: V. Raghavachari, V. Srimathi, K. Indumathy.

IMPORTANT POINT
The assignment of government land for cultivation was deemed invalid due to a pre-existing ban, negating any claims for compensation.

Headnote:

Assignment - Government Land - G.O.Ms. No. 1135, G.O.Ms. No. 2736 - The court ruled that the assignment of government land for cultivation was invalid due to a prior ban, and compensation claims were denied as the assignment was not executed per legal requirements.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a writ appeal concerning government land assigned in 1966 for cultivation, which was later claimed by the respondent. The land was occupied by 20,000 families under a public housing scheme, raising questions about the validity of the original assignment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assignment was illegal due to a government ban on such assignments in the area, and the respondent was not entitled to compensation as the assignment did not comply with the necessary legal provisions.

Issues: The key issues were the validity of the land assignment made in 1966 and the entitlement of the respondent to compensation under the Revenue Standing Orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assignment was void due to a government ban on land assignments in the area, and thus, the respondent could not claim compensation as the assignment was not validly executed.

Result: The writ appeal was allowed, and the order of the writ court was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.03.2021 passed in W.P. No. 11836 of 2010.

1. The subject Government land involved in the present writ appeals situate in Survey Nos. 523 and 524 of Perumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, which was said to be assigned in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. Admittedly, the subject land measuring to an extent of 5 acres are falling within the territorial limits of Chennai Metropolitan City. During the pendency of the writ petition, tenements were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (in short “TNUHDB”) and approximately 20,000 families are in occupation of their respective tenements in the subject property. The Perumbakkam Scheme was developed by TNUHDB to re-locate the encroachers in Chennai City. Several blocks are constructed and allotments are made to the eligible persons and in respect of the subject property measuring to an extent of 5 acres are concerned, 20,000 families are in occupation as of now.

3. The Scheme has been extended to 46.65 Hectares and several thousands of tenements are constructed.

4. The factual matrix reveals that by G.O.Ms. No. 2736, Revenue Department, dated 02.09.1966, five acres of land in S.Nos.523 and 524, Perumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District had been assigned in favour of one late Mr.V.Doss Peck husband of the respondent/Mrs.Seriya Pushpam, represented by her Power of Attorney Mr.M.Jayakumar. The assignment order issued by the Government would stipulate the condition that the assignee should spend a reasonable amount for reclamation of land so as to make it fit for cultivation. The deceased husband of the respondent/Mrs.Seriya Pushpam was in military service during the relevant point of time. He made a request for an assignment of land for irrigation purposes. Accordingly, the Government considered the request of late Mr.V.Doss Peck and assigned the subject land at free of cost for cultivation purposes. It is made clear in the Government Order that the conditions of assignment stipulated in the Revenue Standing Orders would apply.

5. Based on the assignment order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2736, Revenue Department, dated 02.09.1966, the respondent claims right over the Government land.

6. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would mainly contend that the assignment order issued in the year 1966 has not been cancelled. The statement of the appellants that the assignment was canceled is not supported by any documents. The writ court granted several opportunities to the appellants to produce the original records and they failed to do so. The deceased husband of the respondent had no knowledge about the cancellation of assignment. In the absence of any such knowledge, the assignment remains intact and consequently, the first respondent is entitled for compensation. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel would rely on certain Judgments, which would show that even in the absence of any compensation clause, the assignee is entitled for compensation, if the assignment has not been canceled by following due process. Those Judgments in our opinion may not be required, since there is a clause in the Revenue Standing Orders for grant of compensation to the assignees.

7. However, the question arises whether in the present case, the deceased husband of the first respondent is eligible to avail the benefit of compensation under the Revenue Standing Order?

8. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would mainly contend that the assignment per se is illegal. Assignment of land within Chennai City and Chengalpattu District are banned by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1135, Revenue Department dated 17.03.1962. The Chennai belt area list also has been furnished in the Government Order. The lands assigned in favour o

      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