Madras High Court
Ayyappan .N vs / on 21 July, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.02.2025
Delivered on : 19.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17378, 17381 &17382 of 2024
1. Ayyappan .N
2. K.Gopalakrishnan
3. K.Nandhakumar ... Petitioners
/Vs./
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No. 100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Director of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Madurai District.
5. The District Collector
Collectorate, Madurai District.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am )
W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
6. The District Revenue Officer
Madurai District.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur Taluk, Narasingampatti,
Madurai District.
8. The Tahsildar
Madurai East Taluk,
Madurai District.
9. The Sub Registrar
Kadaikinaru,
Madurai North Registration District,
Madurai District.
10.Thiagarajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 7th respondent in
Na.Ka.No.4813/2021/A3 dated 21.07.2023 and all consequential
proceedings culminating in the notice bearing no. Na.KaNo.A3/
4813/2021 and dated 11.07.2024 on the file of the 7 th Respondent and
quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.Sarath Chandran
for VB.Gowtham Thelak
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader for R1-9
: Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja for R10
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am )
W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioners challenge the order of the 7th respondent in Na.Ka.No.4813/2021/A3 dated 21.07.2023 and consequential proceedings bearing No.Na.Ka. No. A3/4813/2021 dated 11.07.2024.
2. I have heard Mr.Sarath Chandran, for Mr.VB.Gowtham Thelak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 9 and Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja, learned counsel for the tenth respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that in the year 1986, more specifically, on 09.06.1986, an assignment deed was issued in favour of Vellachiammal, P.Rajendran, C.Chittammal and Parameshwari. On compliance of payment of the assignment charges, pattas were issued in favour of assignees on 05.09.1989. The said assignees executed a general power of attorney in favour of three different agents, namely, Chandramohan, Jeyaraj and Rajasekaran. In pursuance of the said powers of attorney executed between 16.02.1990 and 12.03.1990, lay out was 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 formed which was also approved by the local body in the year 1990 and no objection certificate was given by the Panchayat President. Thereafter, one of the power agents, viz., Chandramohan, executed a sale deed in favour of the first petitioner on 22.04.1992, vide document No.724/1992. The Tahsildar, Madurai North, in and by letter dated 19.10.1993 affirmed that there are no dues payable by the assignees. Based on the above documents, the Panchayat also approved building plan, on 27.01.1995 submitted by the first petitioner. Thereafter, in and by sale deed, dated 29.01.1996, the power agents executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent vide document No.141/1996. The second petitioner had purchased a property vide document No.4088 of 2010 from one Unnamalaiammal. Subsequently, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots purchased by them and after getting permission, they have constructed buildings, being also by creating mortgage over the respective plots, for availing financial assistance in the year 2018. The plot of the first petitioner was regularized on 16.07.2018 and the plot of the second petitioner was regularized on 11.02.2022 and the plot of the third petitioner was regularized on 04.10.2018.
4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
4. It appears that the tenth respondent by representation dated 24.08.2022 for re-allotment of assigned lands, moved this Court in W.P(MD)No.22662 of 2022 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 22.11.2022, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 24.08.2022. In furtherance of the orders of this Court, an inspection was carried out by the Tahsildar and a report was given to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 09.03.2023 and on 23.06.2023, the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended cancellation of assignment by his communication addressed the District Collector, Madurai. The tenth respondent also sent a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to prevent further encumbrances pertaining to the assigned lands and in response, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by letter dated 21.07.2023 addressed the communication to the Sub Registrar concerned, directing not to register any further documents in respect of the assigned lands. In the meantime, complaining of disobedience of the order in W.P(MD)No. 22662 of 2022, the tenth respondent issued contempt notice to the authorities on 21.11.2023. The Commissioner of Land Reforms directed the District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer to 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 immediately dispose of the tenth respondent's representation, in order to avoid facing contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer had sent a notice to the petitioners and other land owners and after conducting an enquiry, passed an order of cancellation on 15.03.2024 and the eight respondent, Tahsildar was directed to cancel the pattas of the petitioners and restore the said lands as surplus land. Thereafter a notice dated 11.07.2024 came to be issued and the petitioners having come to know about that the cancellation of the assignment behind the back of the petitioners, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition, seeking the communication of the seventh respondent dated 21.07.2023 addressed to the ninth respondent and the consequential notice, dated 11.07.2024 as being illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
5. Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja, learned counsel for the tenth respondent, on whose representation the assignment came to be cancelled, would contend that the impugned proceedings have been passed only after considering all the relevant records and also after receiving report from the revenue officials. He would further submit that there is a violation of 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 the assignment condition, especially, condition No.6 in the annexure, which mandates that the assigned land cannot be encumbered for a period of 15 years and even thereafter, it can be sold only to members belonging to the Harijan community and that it cannot be alienated or encumbered in favour of any other persons. Therefore, the learned counsel for the tenth respondent would submit that there is no infirmity in the order of cancellation of the assignment and re-assignment of the lands. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the tenth respondent would further submit that the properties of the tenth respondent comprised in S.No.1/6 Kadhakinaru Village, Madurai East, measuring 5.65 acres had been wrongly included as properties of Pitchaiammal and declared as surplus lands and assigned to several members and only under the said circumstances, the tenth respondent had made the said representation, seeking cancellation of the assignment.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, would contend that the surplus lands were assigned only for agricultural 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 operations and the land could not be converted as house site plots and therefore, when there is a violation of the Tamil Nadu Act 58/1961, the petitioners cannot seek any redressal by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the District Revenue Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry and filed a report stating that the subject lands measuring 5.65 Acres were registered in the name of one Ponnammal under patta No.69 and the said Ponnammal executed a trust deed by dedication of the property for charitable purpose in document No.4438/1942. However, subsequently, the said trust deed was cancelled in the year 1964. As far as Pitchaiammal is concerned, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that she was owning 248.41 Acres in Illanthaikulam, Kannanendal, Sirudur, Kovilpappakudi, Kollangulam, Sathurmadangan, Podumbu, Sakkudi, Poolampatti, Arittapatti, Ayanpappakudi, Nilaiyur 2 Bit and Ananjiyur villages. She was permitted to retain 46.61 Acres and 201.60 Acres were declared as surplus and a declaration was effected under Tamil Nadu Act 58/61 under 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and gazetted and only pursuant to said declaration, four assignments were granted in favour of Vellachiammal and three others. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that assignees started encumbering the lands, violating conditions of assignment lands by dividing the lands into several plots under lay out “Ayira Vaisayar Nagar”. Therefore, he would contend that there was no error on the part of the officials to proceed to cancel the assignments and he would seek for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents were not entitled to cancel the assignment, after a lapse of 40 years, especially, when much water had flown in the interregnum period. He would further submit that no proceedings have been initiated as contemplated under the Act and even suo motu power of revision can be exercised by the authorities at this distance of time. Further, he would also submit that an order can only be set aside only in a manner known to law and in the writ petition filed by one of the purchasers from the assignees, the private respondent cannot get any 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 relief. He would also take me through the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, to fortify his contentions regarding the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the officials to cancel the assignments.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Syed Rabia Beevi V. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai reported in 1970-2-MLJ-700.
(ii) reported in 1975-2-LW-707 (V.S.Parthasarathy Mudaliar V. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram)
(iii) reported in 1996-6-SCC-445 (State of Rajasthan and others V. D.R.Laxmi and others)
(iv)reported in 2015-3-SCC-695 (Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District V. D.Narsing Rao)
(v) reported in 2018-12-SCC-527 (Chhedi Lal Yadav V. Hari Kishore Yadav(Dead))
(vi) reported in 2018-5-CTC-875 (State of Tamil Nadu V. P.B.K.Thilagar) and 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
(vii) a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No. 1272 of 2022 (K.Chinnapandi V. Alagarsamy), dated 11.04.2023
11. The learned counsel for the tenth respondent would place reliance on the following decisions:
(i) reported in 1995-6-SCC-309 (R.Chandevarappa V. State of Karnataka)
(ii) reported in 2010-3-CTC-845 (V.G.P.Prem Nagar V.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary)
(iii) a judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.798 & 799 of 1993 (V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill, rep. by its Partners Rajendra Kumar V. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration), dated 10.07.2012.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
13. The admitted case is as follows:
13.1. The surplus lands acquired from one Pitchammal were assigned to one Vellachiammal (1.5 Acres), Rajendran (1.5Acres), Chittammal (1.5 Acres) and Parameswari (1.5 Acres) in and by proceedings dated 27.03.1985, pursuant to the notification under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, which was continuously published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.01.1985. It is an admitted the fact that the said assignment came with certain conditions and one of such conditions was that the assigned lands cannot be alienated for a period of 15 years and even after the expiry of 15 years, the lands can be sold only in favour of persons from Harijan community and not to any other persons. One another condition was that the land should be utilized only for agricultural purpose.
13.2. It is also an admitted fact that in breach of the said conditions, the properties were converted as house sites and sold to persons, who were not Harijans or hailing from Scheduled Caste. It is therefore, to be examined in the light of settled legal position as to 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 whether despite such breach of conditions of assignment, whether the respondents were entitled to cancel the assignment and if so, whether there is any limitation to exercise such right of cancellation.
13.3. Before proceeding to discuss any further, it is relevant to discuss the provisions of the Act. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, requires every person, who holds or deems to be holding lands in excess of the Ceiling Area to furnish to the authorised officer, a return containing the particulars regarding the members of the family, details of any encumbrance made, pending litigation, tenancy details, if any and particulars of land, which the person desires to retain within the ceiling area and the lands proposed to be declared as surplus lands.
14. Section 9 of the Act kicks in on failure of the owner to file return as contemplated under Section 8 or when the information furnished is in correct or incomplete. In such event, a notice shall be issued by the authorised officer, calling for additional particulars or such other information as may be necessary and there upon on the basis of the 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 return filed under Section 8 and 9, considering additional particulars, the authorised officer under Section 10 shall conduct an enquiry and prepare a draft statement in respect of each persons holding of excess lands.
Section 10(5) contemplates the draft statements to be published and copies served on the persons interested and also consideration of objections received from the interested persons and to pass order thereon. Under Section 12, once the objections are disposed of in terms of Section 10(5) and orders passed, the authorised officer shall declare the surplus land held by each person and publish a final statement, evidence of which shall be conclusive, subject to Section 14 alone.
15. Section 14 provides for amendment of the final statement under certain specific circumstances like where suit or proceedings relating to title of the subject land excluded has been finally disposed of requiring amendment to the finding statement published under Section 12.
16. Section 15 confers the power on the authorised officer, not withstanding provisions contending under Sections 12 and 14, on its own 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 motion or on the application of any other parties provided, if he satisfies that there has been a bonafide mistake with regard to any entry in the final statement under Section 12 or 14, make necessary corrections to such final statement and also correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes with regard to any entry in such final statement.
17. On a conjoint reading of the above relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, it is thus clear that the authorised officer's final statement is final and conclusive and it is amenable for changes only as provided under Section 14 and not otherwise. Even though the power is conferred under Section 15, both suo motu power of the authorised officer and also on the application of any person, the subject is restricted only to correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or bonafide mistakes regarding any entries in the final statement and not otherwise.
18. In Syed Rabia Beevi's case, this Court, after discussing the various provisions of the Act, held that Section 15 does not amount to a power of revision and that elaborate procedures have been laid down 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 under Section 10(5) to provide for hearing objections and thereafter, disposing of the objections and publishing of a final statement and such quasi-judicial exercise cannot be used for assuming power under the guise of bonafide mistakes that have been made. In V.S.Parthasarathy Mudaliar's case also, the very same view has been taken by this Court.
19. In State of Rajasthan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in challenging the notification is fatal and the writ petition would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings had become final. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court even observed that the fact that no third party rights were created in the case, was hardly a ground for interference. Referring to the relevant test in "Administrative Law" by H.W.R. Wade 7th Edition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does not confer any right. But the action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events. Even if the order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court within a reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if the order is held to be void.
20. In Joint Collector Ranga Reddy's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Further held, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power, especially, when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent, it will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; or otherwise, the exercise of revisional power would itself 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.
21. In Chhedi Lal Yadav's case, it is held that where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, within a reasonable time. Depending on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute, action is to be initiated within a reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any right, because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay.
22. In Chinnapandi's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, following the decision of this Court in T.Tirumalai Gounder and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010-5-L.W. 289, held that when revenue authorities had effected mutation, belated probe cannot be allowed.
18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
23. Insofar as the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the tenth respondent in R.Chandevarappa's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when material resources of the community are distributed to subserve the common good and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the weaker sections of the society and when the State having implemented the policy of economic empowerment is to do economic justice, assigned lands to them to see that they remain in possession and enjoy the property from generation to generation.
24. In V.G.P.Prem Nagar's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that when 'Panchami Lands' have been assigned to the depressed classes, alienation of such lands imposing conditions, then such conditions are not unconstitutional or unreasonable and can be enforced.
25. In V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill's case, this Court held that when clauses in the assignment order and the Revenue Code itself indicates restrictions on alienation of the assigned lands and also of the power of the competent authority to enter upon and resume possession, whenever, 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 contravention is proved, then the exercise of power to cancel the assignment cannot be questioned. Insofar as the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in V.G.P.Prem Nagar's case as well as the decision of this Court in V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill's case, the question of delay was not gone into or rather was not warranted.
26. In fact, in the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in V.G.P.Prem Nagar's case, it is a case of the panchami lands assigned to the depressed classes which weighed in the mind of this Court. Similarly, even in Chandevarappa's case, as well, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only discussing the right conferred on the assignee and in that context, it has been stated that assigned lands to persons of the weaker sections of the Society would have to remain in their possession and enjoyment from generation to generation. In the present case, the beneficiaries admittedly were not either Harijans / Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and it is not a case of assignment of panchami lands for the benefit of weaker sections of the Society. Admittedly, the surplus lands acquired from Pitchaiammal alone were subject matter of assignment in favour of four assignees and it is not even mentioned in the 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 assignment order that the beneficiaries / assignees were persons from the weaker sections of Society like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In fact, the assignment was for consideration which has admittedly been paid by the assignees. No doubt, certain conditions have been imposed on the assignees and there has been a violation of the said conditions.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the condition which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the tenth respondent would be applicable only if the assignment was made in favour of Harijan or Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and not otherwise and therefore, when the assignment was made to persons from other communities, the said condition would not stand attracted. I am unable to countenance the said arguments for the simple reason that condition No.6 in the annexure only talks about the subject assigned lands not being sold for a period of 15 years and further restrictions are placed for sale of the lands, only to persons from the Harijan / Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe community. The attractive arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not find favour with me. Therefore, there is no hesitation for me to hold that by not carrying on 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 agricultural activities and by alienating the subject lands, by forming the lay out and by selling plots to persons other than economically weaker sections, viz., Harijan, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe, there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of assignment.
28. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether when there has been any such violation of such conditions, the respondents can take action at their own will and pleasure. In T.Tirumalai Gounder's case, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the revenue officials themselves have effected mutation, it amounted to implied consent and therefore, it was not open to the authorities to cancel the assignment, citing violations. The said ratio was followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Chinnapandi's case, where the properties changed hands several times and mutation of records was effected after every sale and therefore, belatedly complaining of violation of conditions of assignment cannot be entertained. In the present case also, as already discussed in the opening paragraphs of this order, four assignees appointed three powers of attorneys, who in turn formed lay out and sold several plots. The petitioners are purchasers of plots from 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 the original assignees. The petitioners' applications for not only mutation of revenue records in their favour, were not only favourably acted upon, but, that apart even building planning permission had been granted and the plots have also been regularized by the revenue authorities who have subsequently chosen to cancel the assignment that too, on a representation made by the tenth respondent, who claims that his predecessor in interest, namely, one Ponnammal's property, has been wrongly included as surplus lands. It is not brought to my notice that the said Ponnammal during her life time, had taken any steps to contend that her lands were wrongly included as surplus lands of Pitchaiammal. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in a writ petition that has been filed challenging the cancellation of the assignments, the tenth respondent cannot seek any relief. The order of cancellation after effecting mutation of records, granting of building approval as well as the regularization of the plots and that too after a lapse of close to 40 years is clearly unsustainable. Having remained mute spectators right from the date of property being plotted out and sold to various third parties, including the petitioners herein, not only there have been merely watching over the alienations, 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 but they have also given approval for construction of buildings, mutation of revenue records and also regularization of the plots. Therefore, the respondents, after having done all these, that too, after a lapse of about four decades, certainly cannot proceed to cancel the assignments. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1996-6-SCC-445 (State of Rajasthan and others V. D.R.Laxmi and others), held that even when there is no third party right is created, delay and laches cannot be justified. In the present case, much water has flown under the bridge and the original assignees have formed a lay out and dealt with the properties to various innocent third parties. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner's case, stands on a much better footing.
29. Lastly, the learned counsel for the tenth respondent referring to the date of birth of Pitchaiammal on 12.09.1994 and proceedings dated 27.03.1985, pursuant to the notification dated 09.01.1985 was after the death of Pitchaiammal, therefore, the said proceedings were void. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even a void order will have to be challenged, that too, in right earnest. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even when there is no 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 period of limitation for challenging a void order, belated exercise of such challenge or exercise of discretionary power cannot be entertained as it would amount to such exercise of revisional power by itself to be a fraud on statute. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the cancellation of the assignments belatedly and after express acquiescence and waiver by the authorities is clearly unsustainable, in the eye of law. Consequently, the petitioners deserve relief.
30. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the 7 th respondent in Na.Ka.No.4813/2021/A3 dated 21.07.2023 and consequential proceedings bearing No.Na.Ka. No. A3/4813/2021 dated 11.07.2024, are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 19.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
LS
25/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am )
W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
TO
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No. 100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3. The Director of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madurai District.
5. The District Collector Collectorate, Madurai District.
6. The District Revenue Officer Madurai District.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Taluk, Narasingampatti, Madurai District.
26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024
8. The Tahsildar Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
9. The Sub Registrar Kadaikinaru, Madurai North Registration District, Madurai District.
27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am ) W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS Pre- delivery Order made in W.P.(MD)No.20483 of 2024 Dated:
19.03.2025 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 10:51:43 am )