Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Shanmugha Arts on 11 August, 2017
Author: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao
Bench: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, S.M.Subramaniam
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Reserved on : 04.8.2017 & Pronounced on : 11/8/2017 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO And The Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Writ Appeal No.1451 of 2015 & MP.No.1 of 2015 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur. 5.The Tahsildar, Thanjavur. 6.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prisons) Department, Chennai-9. 7.The Additional Director General of Police/ Inspector General of Prisons, CMDA Tower-II, Egmore, Chennai-8. (Appellants 6 & 7 are impleaded vide CMP.No.2480 Of 2017 vide order dated 11.8.2017 by NRRJ & SMSJ) ...Appellants Vs 1.Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), Deemed to be University, having its main campus at 'Shanmugha Campus', Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur-613402. HQ at Madras, rep.by its Registrar Prof.R.Kandaswamy 2.VEE SEE BEE Trust administering Shanmugha Polytechnic, having its main campus at 'Shanmugha Campus' Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur- 613402, rep.by its Managing Trustee Prof.R.Sethuraman Respondents APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.9.2014 made in WP.No.9037 of 2004 & WPMP.No. 10545 of 2004. For Appellants : Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy, AG for Mrs.Sri Jayanthi, GP For Respondents : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, SC for M/s.G.R.Associates & Mr.N.Venkataraman, SC JUDGMENT
NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J This writ appeal is preferred by the State and its various officials against the orders passed by C.S.Karnan,J in W.P.No.9037 of 2004 and WPMP.No.10545 of 2004 on 04.9.2014 and on 18.12.2014.
2. The first respondent a deemed university and the second respondent, which manages it, have filed the writ petition. They impugned an order passed on 01.3.2004 by the second appellant the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. It appears that the said writ petition has been decided by an order passed on 04.9.2014 initially. But however, it also appears from the record that paragraph 22 has been substituted by another order passed on 18.12.2014.
3. Since the learned Advocate General has raised a fundamental objection with regard to the method and manner, in which, the writ petition came to be decided and also the order came to be unilaterally altered more than three months after the first order, we have preferred to consider the entire matter on its merits instead of confining our scrutiny to the correctness or otherwise of exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, since we are of the view that two separate orders would not have been passed normally by the Court without there being any application or occasion to deal with the case on the second occasion. Further, passing such orders without hearing all the parties concerned is not a right approach.
4. The controversy in the writ petition centers around the rights of the parties with regard and in reference to a particular parcel of land. The District Collector, Thanjavur appears to have sent proposals on 25.9.1985 to the Government for transfer of 23.54 hectares of land, which comes to 58.17 acres, situate in Thirumalaisamudram Village, Thajavur Taluk to the Jail Department for formation of 'open air jail'. The Government appears to have also sanctioned through their Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.214 Education Department dated 12.3.1985, a sum of Rs.11.77 lakhs as grant to the Vice Chancellor, Tamil University to meet the necessary expenditure for shifting an open air jail and for construction of the related infrastructural facilities therein.
5. A polytechnic college run and managed by the second respondent herein has been functioning in the lands adjacent to the proposed lands and therefore, they raised an objection for locating the open air jail adjoining the educational institutions, as the polytechnic admits girl students also. The management of the polytechnic college, it appears, started encroaching upon the lands set apart for the formation of open air jail and the Collector has immediately taken up the matter on 24.10.1985 with the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, to transfer the land in question to the Jail Department and permit the Jail Department to enter upon the land immediately, as otherwise, the machinery of the District Administration is not in a position to effectively prevent the encroachment.
6. On 03.12.1985, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration passed orders and enter upon permission is granted to the Prison Department as per Revenue Standing Order 23A(ii). The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has also noted in his communication dated 03.12.1985 that the cost of the proposed land for transfer has been reported as Rs.2,32,680/-. Obviously, the lands in question are not useful otherwise or fertile lands. However, the Prison Department has also not entered upon the land, it looks like and took no steps to protect the land.
7. The management of the college and others appeared to have filed writ petition in W.P.Nos.14718 to 14720 of 1988 objecting to the location of the open air jail and while entertaining those writ petitions, by way of interim order, a restraint order was granted by this Court on 02.12.1988. Consequently, the formation of open air jail has been stalled. The management of the college has taken up the issue with the Government so as not to establish the open air prison near an engineering college where both boys and girls are studying and in view of the likely law and order problem that might arise. The management also offered land of an extent of 70.56 acres belonging to it at Thatchankurichi village at Pudukottai District in lieu of the present lands. However, the Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.1030 Home (Prisons IV) Department dated 25.7.1996 rejecting the representation as it lacks merit. It has also not accepted the offer of land of 70.56 acres as an exchange, as those lands are far away and that too, they are located in the neighboring Pudukottai District in the State.
8. The writ petitions instituted in W.P.Nos.14718 to 14720 of 1988 have come to be dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 13.7.1998. The matters were then carried in appeal by filing W.A.Nos.974 and 975 of 1998, which were also dismissed on 22.9.1998. In the meantime, the Tahsildar, Thanjavur, has drawn proceedings in terms of and in accordance with Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (henceforth called the Act) and issued proceedings dated 24.5.1999.
9. Those proceedings came to be challenged in W.P.Nos.9287 to 9292 of 1999. While rejecting those writ petitions on 01.6.1999 and preserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act, this Court directed the possession of the petitioners not to be disturbed for a period of six weeks. It appears that the appeal preferred was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the revision preferred thereafter was also rejected by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur on 26.12.2000.
10. Against those orders, a further revision petition has been filed before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai on 03.2.2001 under Section 10A of the Act. Entertaining the said revision petition, initially, the Special Commissioner passed an interlocutory order on 20.3.2001 granting stay. Now, by the impugned order in the writ petition dated 01.3.2004, the said revision petition was dismissed in brief terms, which read as under :
Thiru.R.Sethuraman, Managing Trustee, Bala Seva Educational and Charitable Trust administering Shanmuga College of Engineering and VEE SEE BEE Trust administering Shanmuga Polytechnic, Thirumalai Samudram, Thanjavur, has filed revision petition against the order of District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur in the reference first cited and requested for the granting of stay.
2. The request of the Trust was examined by this office and stay granted, in this office proceedings third cited stating that the stauts quo of the disputed lands be maintained in the disposal of the revision petition.
3. In the meantime, the Government, in their letter No.541, Revenue Department dated 19.12.2002, have ordered to evict the encroachment made by the Shanmuga Engineering College and Polytechnic in the disputed lands and also ordered to calculate the lease amount for the period from the date of encroachment to till the date of eviction of encroachment and collect the lease amount along with interest. Since the Government have issued final orders in the case, the stay granted in this office proceedings Roc.No.T2/6251/2001 dated 20.3.2001 is hereby vacated and revision petition is dismissed.
11. It is against this order, the writ petition was instituted and the learned Single Judge has set aside that order and hence, the State is in appeal before us.
12. Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr.N.Venkatraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
13. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that the management of the writ petitioner institution encroached upon nearly 20 acres of Government land and has also raised buildings thereon. It has also successfully frustrated the open air jail project coming up in the vicinity. The writ petitioners have nearly 60 acres of their own lands. Therefore, there is no justification for them to encroach upon the land belonging to the Government and raise constructions thereon. Dealing with the contention that several educational institutions have been conferred the benefit of either assignment of Government lands or alienation of Government lands, the learned Advocate General would point out that each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and the reasons may be peculiar to each one. The State Government cannot be compelled to invariably part with its land either by way of assignment or by way of alienation in favour of an encroacher.
14. The learned Advocate General would further submit that the proposals made by the management of the writ petitioner college having received appropriate consideration at the hands of the Government and they having been rejected, there is no justification whatsoever for interfering with the issue at this stage by the Courts.
15. In reply, Sri.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri.N. Venkatraman, learned Senior Counsel would draw our attention specifically to a proposal sent up by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration through his D.O.Lr.No.T2/4064/ 2000 dated 25.2.2002 to the Collector, Thanjavur District pointing out that the report of the Collector reveals that two educational institutions namely Periyar Maniammai College and Shanmuga Engineering College (the writ petitioner herein) have encroached the Government lands and that no tangible action has been taken by the District Administration either to remove the encroachments or to regulate the encroachments by way of lease/alienation. Therefore, the Collector was asked to take immediate action, inspect those lands and find out whether the encroached lands are very essential for running the educational institutions concerned and if so, to send a proposal for lease/alienation along with proper application and also the land valuation in full shape for securing the orders from appropriate authorities, as otherwise, the Collector was asked to remove the encroachments immediately.
16. In response thereto, the Collector submitted that he inspected and surveyed the land with the officials on 19.3.2002 and made available his survey statement therewith. Out of the total of 23.54 hectares of the land allotted to the Prison Department, the encroached area was 20.62 acres, in which, so many buildings were constructed as part of multi crore project. He also pointed out that against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur under the Act, an appeal was preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer and after the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the appeal, a revision was filed before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer also rejected the revision and against the orders of the District Revenue Officer, a further revision was preferred before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. According to the Collector, the college has encroached upon 20.62 acres of Government poramboke land and built college buildings and the value is above Rs.5 crores.
17. Most importantly, the Collector concluded his report setting out that even if the buildings of the college are demolished, the land is no more useful for the Government and hence, suggested that if the institution gives any other land for exchange of the encroached land, they could consider the same or fix the rate for market value of the land encroached.
18. Based on the report of the Collector, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration took up the issue with the Government on 15.5.2002. The Special Commissioner also invited the attention of the Government to the proposals submitted earlier by him to the Government on 05.11.2001 proposing to collect double the market value from the college, as the lands were encroached by the institution for a long time without paying anything to the Government. The institution also constructed pucca buildings in the encroached lands and the Accountant General, in the audit objections, has been requesting the Government to finalize the assignment of the land and recover cost of the land to save further loss to the Government. The Special Commissioner also drew the attention of the Government to the Revenue Standing Order 15(2)(ii) and suggested to the Government to treat his earlier proposals sent on 05.11.2001 as proposals for alienation of the land under Standing Order 24.
19. It is in response to this proposal sent on 15.5.2002, the Government rejected the proposal by its communication dated 19.12.2002. The order dated 19.12.2002 reads as under :
Your attention is invited to the communications under reference.
2. It has been stated in the letter 2nd under reference that lands in S.No.148, Thirumalaisamudram Village, Thanjavur District and Taluk to the extent of 20.62 acres have been encroached by Shanmuga College of Engineering and it has been recommended that the same may be assigned on collection of double market value. The Government, after duly considering the recommendation, has decided to reject the recommendation to assign the lands to Shanmuga College of Engineering, as assigning lands to encroachers will set a bad precedent.
3. The Government orders that the encroachment made by Shanmuga College of Engineering and Polytechnic College on the lands belonging to the Prison Department may be removed and rent can be collected with interest from the date of encroachment to date of removal, treating the same as lease period.
4. You are required to take appropriate action as per the Governments decision in paragraphs 2 and 3 and send a report to the Government.
20. Sri.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri.N. Venkatraman, learned Senior Counsel would point out that the State Government, through their orders in G.O.Ms.No.142 Revenue (Land 5(1)) Department dated 26.3.2003, passed orders for assignment of 65.26 acres of land subject to collection of single rate market value. The relevant passages from the said Government Order namely paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 read as under :
3. Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society has encroached poramboke lands of the Government. The society has requested to assign the 44.09 hectares (108.84 acres) of land which is under its encroachment.
4. While the application was under consideration, the Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society filed Writ Petition Nos.2604 of 1997 and 298 of 1997 seeking directions from the High Court. The High Court, in its order dated 27.3.2002, directed the Government to take action within a period of six weeks.
5. The District Collector of Thanjavur has reported that the request of the society for 44.09.0 hectare need not be considered and only 28.44.5 hectare (70.26 acres) alone need to be assigned and the rest of the land is to be used for public purposes.
Encroachment village (1) Survey No. (2) Type (3) Extent (hectares) (4) Vallam Vadakku Sethe 187/1 Tharisu 16.51.0 187/2 0.24.5 187/3 3.18.5 187/4 0.07.5 195/6 0.16.0 195/2 0.42.0 195/5 0.25.0 193/4 0.86.0 193/8 0.60.0 187/6 1.67.5 194/5 0.43.5 177/12 Forest 2.25.5 177/15 0.22.5 Pillaiyarpatti 115/A5 Quarry 0.55.5 Total 28.44.5 hectares Or 70.26 acres The Collector has also recommended that 28.44.5 hectare (70.26 acres) of land be assigned to Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society on collection of twice the market value and grant exemption from the Land Ceiling Act. On 21.3.2002, the single market value of the land was Rs.1,39,85,268/-.
6. The Special Commissioner and Land Administrative Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the Collector and recommended assignment of land on collection of twice the market value with all usual conditions under Revenue Board Standing Order 24.
...
8. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Thanjavur and Chief Educational Officer (CEO), Thanjavur were asked to inspect the lands and send a report to the Government. They inspected and submitted the report that Vallam Government Girls High School has been functioning temporarily in the Panchayat Union Primary School Buildings and therefore, the said land is required for the utility of the Girls' School. The District Collector reported that the land under question has been encroached by Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society and has been recommended for assignment by the Special Commissioner and Land Administrative Commissioner and hence, the request of the Parent Teacher Association cannot be entertained and 70.26 acres can be assigned to Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society.
The Government examined the request of the Parent Teacher Association of the Girls High School, the Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society and the recommendations of the District Collector and Special Commissioner and Land Administrative Commissioner and orders the following :
The sub-divided land of 2.02.4 hectare (5 acres) of Vallam Vadakkusethi Village (survey No. 177/12-5 acres) is to be transfered to Vallam Girls' High School. The transfer is done as per the standing instruction No.23A with usual conditions by not collecting land value etc. i. Subdivision charges like stone fixing etc., have to be collected from the respective Department.
ii. The exemption is granted under Land Ceiling Act.
iii. The entire lands must be used only for the purpose for which it is assigned and bound by the rules and regulations of the Government.
iv. The proposed land or a portion of it when not required has to be handed over to the Revenue Department.
9. The Government assigns the following lands in Vallam Vadakkusethi and Pillaiyarpatti villages of Thanjavur Taluk and Thanjavur District and Taluk to Periyar Maniammai Educational Charitable Society as per the Revenue Board Standing Order No.24, subject to the usual conditions.
Encroachment village Survey Type Extent (hectares) Vallam Vadakku Sethe 187/1 Tharisu 16.51.0 187/2 0.24.5 187/3 3.18.5 187/4 0.07.5 195/6 0.16.0 195/2 0.42.0 195/5 1.25.0 193/4 0.86.0 193/8 0.60.0 187/6 1.67.5 194/5 0.43.5 177/12 Forest 0.22.5 177/15 0.22.6 Pillaiyarpatti 115/A5 Quarry 0.55.5 Total 26.42.1 hectares Or 65.26 acres i. The single market value as on the date of transfer, subdivision charges, stone fixing charges, etc., have to be collected from the society.
ii. The exemption is granted under Land Ceiling Act.
iii. The society must use the entire lands only for the purpose for which it is assigned and bound by the rules and regulations of the Government.
iv. The proposed land or a portion of it when not required has to be handed over to the Revenue Department.
10. The Collector of Thanjavur and the Special Commissioner and Land Administrative Commissioner are requested to take further steps to implement this order.
21. Both learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this is not the only instance where the State Government passed orders of this nature, but it has passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.567 Revenue Department dated 20.6.1995 to alienate 119.16 acres of Government land occupied by Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur to be alienated to it under the terms and conditions of Revenue Standing Order 24 on collection of land value of Rs.465.29 lakhs as fixed by the Government. It is also urged that there are several such instances where the Government lands encroached upon or occupied were either assigned or alienated. It is also pointed out that through G.O.Ms.No. 112 dated 09.3.2001, 98.80 acres of land have been alienated to Vellore Engineering College on collection of land cost at the prevailing market price. Again, through G.O.Rt.No.208 dated 03.3.2007, the land of an extent of 7.44 acres in Thiruvanmiyur Village has been alienated to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute on collection of Rs.6,01,320/- per ground with 9.5% interest per annum. Again, through G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 06.1.2010, the land of an extent of 40 acres has been once again assigned to Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society on collection of single rate of value.
22. According to both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, the case of the writ petitioner Deemed University alone is dealt with distinctly and separately for irrelevant and unconnected reasons and grounds. They would urge that the case of the writ petitioner institution stands on the same footing as that of Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society, whose case also is covered by the proposals that have been sent by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 25.2.2002. However, while rejecting the proposal in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned on the ground that it will set a bad precedent, the Government found no such difficulty for assigning the lands through their G.O.Ms.No.142 Revenue Department dated 26.3.2003 to Periyar Maniyammai Educational and Charitable Society and it was assigned 65 acres of land. It is also urged that for extraneous reasons and considerations, the writ petitioner institution is sought to be victimized and singled out. When, in respect of two educational institutions, proposals for assignment/alienation have been sent up by the Head of the Revenue Administration, namely the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, the case of the writ petitioner gets rejected on the ground that it sets a bad precedent. Then, the learned Senior Counsel would proceed to state that let the State Government follow the precedent set by them in the case of Periyar Maniyammai educational institutions.
23. Both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petitioner institution cannot be termed or treated as an encroacher, for, the then Honble Chief Minister of the State, upon hearing the representation of the writ petitioner, was kind enough to agree for dropping the proposal relating to construction of open air jail adjoining an educational institution where both boys and girls would be attending. They would also point out that the then Honble Minister of the Cabinet was also present at that meeting and the then Honble Chief Minister instructed the Honble Minister to inform the Inspector General of Prisons as well as the Collector of Thanjavur to take necessary corrective measures. In fact, the Honble Minister had sworn to an affidavit bringing out all these factual developments and the same was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, that has been brushed aside as an after thought.
24. The learned Advocate General, in reply, would point out that the affidavit of the then Hon'ble Minister cannot be looked into, for, firstly, there is no record to vouch for either the meeting with the then Hon'ble Chief Minister or the instructions issued by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister for dropping the proposal for construction of open air jail. The learned Advocate General would submit that in the absence of any record to vouch for the said fact, it will not be safe to rely upon the unsubstantiated statements of fact asserted to by an Hon'ble Minister in an affidavit. Secondly, such an assertion was not made before the Tahsildar, but was made for the first time in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
25. We consider that the said submission of the learned Advocate General is not without any merit. It may not be really safe to place reliance upon the contents of an affidavit even though such an affidavit may have been furnished by an impartial and uninterested individual, who had come to occupy a responsible position as Cabinet Minister in the State Government. It will also not be safe to rely upon in any matters relating to alienation of the Government lands, when there is no record for the decisions said to have been taken at the level of the Chief Minister.
26. The learned Advocate General is also right in his submission that the respondent institution has been rightly proceeded against under the provisions of the Act, for the fact remains that they occupied and constructed pucca buildings of college and hostels, etc., on lands not belonging to them, but belonging to the Government. But however, the fact also remains that under Section 10A of the Act, the remedy to prefer a revision is provided against any decision or order passed under the Act either suo motu or on an application -
(a) by the District Collector, if such decision or order was passed by the Deputy Tahsildar or Collector;
(b) by the Commissioner of Land Administration, if such decision or order was made by any officer other than the Appellate Authority; and
(c) by the State Government, if such decision or order was passed by the Appellate Authority or the Commissioner of Land Administration.
27. By virtue of this provision contained in Section 10A(1)(b) of the Act, a revision would lie to the Commissioner of Land Administration on the decision or order passed by any officer other than the Appellate Authority. District Revenue Officer is not the Appellate Authority.
28. In the instant case, that is the precise reason as to why the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has entertained the revision preferred by the respondent institution on 08.2.2001 and also granted an interim order on 20.3.2001. But however, the said revision has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 01.3.2004, which we have extracted in one of the preceding paragraphs.
29. Therefore, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has been exercising quasi judicial power available to him under Section 10A of the Act. However, he rejected the revision only for the reason that the Government has issued final orders on 19.12.2002 rejecting the proposals submitted earlier for assigning the lands to the writ petitioner institution. That is hardly a satisfactory way of deciding a dispute of the nature raised in the writ petition. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration is required to independently apply his mind to the merits of the matter as canvassed by the writ petitioner in the revision and he is supposed to deal with the same in as objective manner as is possible and arrive at a conclusion. He called for a report from the Collector, Thanjavur, who felt that it would be appropriate to assign/alienate the lands to the institution, as it has built pucca buildings thereon. The Collector also felt that the lands would be useless, even if those buildings, which are worth few crores of rupees are demolished. The Collector recommended to collect double the market rate from the institution. He also valued the lands at Rs.5 Crores. That report was endorsed for acceptance by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, when he took up the issue with the Government. Hence, he cannot regulate his quasi judicial power only on the premise that the Government has already rejected the proposals submitted by him earlier for alienation of the land in favour of the writ petitioner institution. Therefore, for want of proper application of mind disclosing the true, correct and relevant reasons, which alone can help independently in arriving at a conclusion in a quasi judicial lis, by the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, the impugned order in the writ petition dated 01.3.2004 is not sustainable and it has to be set aside.
30. But however, the problem does not rest there. The Government has been adopting, it appears, different standards for different applicants in the matter of assignment/alienation of land. They adopted one standard in case of Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute and another standard in the case of Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society and yet another standard in the case of Vellore Engineering College. An altogether opposite stance in the case of the writ petitioner institution on the ground that it will set bad precedent. Can one reasonably subscribe to the notion that if lands get assigned to the writ petitioner institution, it would be bad and if lands are to be assigned to other institutions it would not be bad. What distinguishing features make the case of the writ petitioner institution 'bad' and what are those special features present in the case of the other educational institutions, which made it appear 'good' for the Government. This and other relevant distinguishing features are conspicuous by their absence on record.
31. It is also really interesting to note that the proposals emanated from the same Collector of Thanjavur District with regard to the writ petitioner institution as well as Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Society in respect of alienation of lands encroached upon by them. While dealing with the case of the writ petitioner institution, the proposals have been shot down on 19.12.2002 as that it will be setting a bad precedent and when it came to Periyar Maniammai Educational and Charitable Trust, in less than three months thereafter, the Government found no such moral or ethical compulsion when it passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.142 to alienate the land of an extent of 65.26 acres of land in favour of Periyar Maniyammai Educational and Charitable Society by collecting single rate of the value whereas the proposal made in respect of the writ petitioner institution was that the land cost was approximately Rs.5 crores and that therefore, double the amount should be collected from the writ petitioner institution. Can one say collection of money at double the market value for the mistake of encroaching upon Government lands is a bad idea!
32. While the Government enjoys certain amount of freedom in the matter of alienation of the land available to it, but at the same time, different sets of standards cannot be adopted for similarly situated applicants. If there are any special or peculiar circumstances available, discretionary power can be exercised. When it came to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, most valuable lands lying in a suburb close to the City of Madras have been allowed to be alienated because a Medical College has occupied the Government land and constructed buildings thereon and when it came to Vellore Engineering College, the same consideration was shown. Further, when it came to Periyar Maniyammai Educational and Charitable Trust, again the same consideration was shown. But, when the writ petitioner is also an educational institution and though it has committed a grave error in encroaching upon the land of the Government and constructed pucca buildings thereon, a completely different yardstick is deployed for treating its claim. That is not fair or reasonable. When the Government is required to treat all claims, which are similar in nature, content and context, they should judge by one single common standard or yardstick, but different yardsticks cannot be devised from time to time. The Government cannot leave an impression that it can pick and choose the beneficiaries in such matters.
33. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that while setting aside the order dated 01.3.2004 passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, we direct the revision petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioner institution dated 03/08.2.2001 to be made over to the Government for its consideration. Let the Government take into account the various Government Orders passed by it earlier, referred to supra, in respect of Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Periyar Maniyammai Educational and Charitable Society, Vellore Engineering College, etc., and take an appropriate decision with regard to the case and claim of the writ petitioner institution. But however, the Government will take up for consideration of any such claim provided the writ petitioner institution remits a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) (double the valuation of Rs.5 crores suggested by the Collector, Thanjavur/Chief Commissioner of Land Administration) to the Government, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
34. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
11/8/2017 Internet : Yes RS NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J AND S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J RS P.D.JUDGMENT IN WA.No.1451 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 11/8/2017