The court affirmed that compliance with court orders is essential for land assignment, and government conduct rules cannot retroactively affect property rights established prior to their enactment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent and quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/2557/2016 dated 26.10.2016 and to consequently direct the respondents to assign lands in S.Nos. 607/3 and 606/1 in Kallamcode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

2. I have heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Isaac Chambers, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns an extent of 74 cents comprised in S.Nos.606/1, 606/2, 606/3 and 607/3 at Kollamcode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds of the years 1964 and 1968. Even according to the petitioner, the said lands are classified as “assessed waste dry lands” and the petitioner has constructed a house and has also planted coconut trees, jack fruit trees and has also dug a well and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, paying taxes to the revenue authorities. Adjacent land owners who had no pathway claimed right of pathway and submitted representations to the first respondent, District Collector, seeking to acquire lands in S.Nos.606/1 and 607/3. The writ petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.359 of 1993, for relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Pending the suit, there was Peace Committee Meeting conducted on 21.05.1997 and the petitioner agreed for providing a pathway to enable the adjoining land owners to reach their lands through S.Nos.606/1, 606/2 and 606/3. The said arrangement was also confirmed by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, filed in the said suit. The suit was decreed on 17.09.2002, restraining the defendants from evicting the petitioner from the said property, without adhering to due process of law.

4. As the relief of declaration was declined, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.93 of 2002, before the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai. The First Appellate Court granted the relief of declaration and confirmed the decree for injunction already passed by the trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court imposed a condition that the petitioner would have to pay twice the market value of the land on or before 05.03.2007 and on such compliance, the respondents were called upon to assign the property to the petitioner.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in compliance with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.87,674/- on 05.03.2007, which was the last date for payment of the said money. However, no steps were taken by the respondents to assign the lands in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore, constrained to send a representation to the District Collector / first respondent on 09.02.2013, seeking assignment in compliance with the decree of the competent Civil Court.

6. As there was no action taken on the said representation, the petitioner also moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10468 of 2016. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 28.07.2016, calling upon the respondents to address the representation of the petitioner within a period of two [2] weeks. The petitioner also made further representation subsequent to the said order and also appeared in person on 29.09.2016 and submitted all relevant documents. A reminder was sent on 14.10.2016. However, subsequently, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order, refusing assignment of the land citing that the petitioner and her husband were Government servants and they had acquired lands against the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and that there was a pathway in S.No.606/1 and therefore, patta cannot be granted. The further reason was also given to reject the assignment request stating that the market