Madras High Court
N.Chandrasekaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 August, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
WP.No.40431 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP.No.40431 of 2016
N.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri Revenue Division,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
6. Tahsildar
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.40431 of 2016
7. The Commissioner / Block Development Officer,
Minjur Panchayat Union,
Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur Distirct.
8. The President,
Sirulapakkam Village Panchayat,
Annamalaicherry Village,
Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
9. The Project Director,
Office of the Tsunami Project Executive Unit,
Rural Development & Panchayatraj,
No.100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
10. The Project Organiser,
District TSunami Project Executive Unit,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur- 602 001.
11. The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records of the
impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 23.05.2016, vide
Na.Ka/ 4389/ 2015/ LR.1 and quash the same, consequently, direct the
respondents to re-convey the property in Survey NO.39/1 total an extent of
1.46 acres situated at Annamalaicherry Village, Ponneri Taluk , Thiruvallur
District or pay the compensation for the petitioners land and further directs
to take action against the Revenue Officials for their illegalities.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.40431 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Jothimanian
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnan Raja, AGP RR1 to 6
Mr. J.H.Inian, GA RR7 & 8
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 23.05.2016 and consequently, direct the respondents to re-convey the property in Survey NO.39/1 measuring an extent of 1.46 acres situated at Annamalaicherry Village, Ponneri Taluk , Thiruvallur District or pay the compensation for the petitioners land.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Ooranampedu Village, Vayalur Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The petitioner's wife got the property from her mother by way of settlement deed in respect of the subject property in S.No.37/1 measuring an extent of 1.46 acres, Annamalaicherry Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District and the same was registered as document Nos.9144 of 2011 dated 04.08.2011. The said property was purchased by his mother in law from one Srinivasan. The said Srinivasan had purchased the same in the year 2006 from one Amutha. The said Amutha had originally purchased on 19.04.2006 under the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 Court Auction from the Chennai Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 and the same was registered in Document No.5262 of 2006. After settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner's wife, she is the absolute owner of the said property, but, the respondents 6 to 9 are prevented the petitioner and his wife from interfering into the said property stating that the said property was utilised for construction of Tsunami Kudieruppu for the people affected in the Tsunami and the respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22734 of 2012 praying to re-convey the property in S.No.39/1 and to direct the respondents to pay the compensation. This Court, vide its order dated 20.01.2015, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to give a representation to the third respondent. Upon receipt of such representation, the third respondent shall conduct enquiry after calling for the entire records and shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he made a representation on 19.02.2015 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 dated 20.01.2015, the present impugned order has been passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings dated 23.05.2016 stating that the subject land was acquired under the Land Ceiling Act in the year 1991 itself. The land has been vested with the Government and therefore, the sale of the property was done by the DRT itself without jurisdiction.
4. Challenging the said impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in S.No.39/1 measuring an extent of 1.46 acres was originally belongs to Kandy Reddy and the said property was sold to one Ramana Rao on 11.09.1989. The said Ramana Rao had borrowed money and deposited title of the property in the Indian Bank as security purpose. Thereafter, an application was moved by Indian Bank before the DRT II for recovery of money and thereafter, the said property was sold to one Amutha. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order passed by the third respondent is totally illegal and arbitrary. The 3rd respondent has failed 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 to consider that the property was auctioned on 30.01.2006 after due paper publication made by DRT. But the third respondent stated that the sale of DRT is illegal and wrongly done. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the revenue records, S.No.39/1 is classified as Land reforms surplus waste land whereas the petitioner is the pattadar for S.No.39/3B. The respondents have not acquired the petitioner's land. The land in question is purely belonged to the Government. The impugned order passed by the third respondent is correct and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is the claim of the petitioner that originally the property in S.No.39/1 was owned by his mother in law viz., Chandra and she executed a 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 settlement deed in favour of her daughter viz., Anandhi, vide document No,9144 of 2011 dated 04.08.2011. Previously the said property was purchased through the auction conducted by DRT-II vide order dated 09.06.2006 and, thereafter, the petitioner made application for issuance of patta and the same was not considered and, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22731/12 and this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2015 directed the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's representation pursuant to which the impugned order was passed. The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for issuance of patta on the ground that the said land has already been acquired under the Land Reforms Act and the land has been classifed as ''Land Ceiling Tharisu''. Further, the first respondent arrived at the conclusion that once the land is acquired under the Land Reforms Act, the said land cannot be alternated by passing of order by the Tribunal.
9. However, the fact remains that the order of DRT has not been set aside in the manner known to law and further no details was discussed with regard to the land reforms proceedings initiated and the said land reforms proceedings is not also reflected in the impugned order. In the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is bereft of any details and definitely warrants interference a the hand of this Court.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent is directed to furnish all the records with regard to the land reforms proceedings to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to appear before the third respondent during enquiry to defend his case. The 3rd respondent is directed to furnish the materials to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
08.08.2022 rli Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Principal Secretary to Government Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Revenue Division, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
6. Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
7. The Commissioner / Block Development Officer, Minjur Panchayat Union, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur Distirct.
8. The President, Sirulapakkam Village Panchayat, Annamalaicherry Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.40431 of 2016 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Rli
9. The Project Director, Office of the Tsunami Project Executive Unit, Rural Development & Panchayatraj, No.100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
10. The Project Organiser, District TSunami Project Executive Unit, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur- 602 001.
11. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
WP.No.40431 of 2016
08.08.2022 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis