Madras High Court
Thavasi vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P(MD)No.13337 of 2015
and M.P.(MD).No.3 and 4 of 2015
1.Thavasi
2.Desai Veerapandi
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.Navaneetha Kannan
5.Mohandoss
6.Harichandra Muruga Boopathy
7.Chandra
8.Malarai
9.Banumathi
10.Karuppaiah, S/o.Sannasi
11.Karuppaiah S/o.Chitra Velu
12.Valli
13.Ganesan
14.Selvi
15.Panchavarnam, W/o. Natarajan
16.Karuppusamy
17.Panchu
18.Kali
19.Veerammal
20.Veeran
21.Lakshmi
22.Chitrayee
23.Sundari
24.Rakki
25.Chetti
26.Ganga Devi
27.Selvam
28.Panchavarnam, W/o. Vazhiyan
29.Ponnathal
30.Sonaichi
31.Malliga
32.Muniyammal
33.Kaliyammal
34.Pappa
35.Meenal
36.Mari
37.Kali
38.Karuppaiah
39.Gurusamy ..Petitioners
Vs
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT,
RAMANATHAPURAM.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ADHI DRAVIDAR WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
TALUK OFFICE
MUDUKULATHUR,
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE DISTRICT ADHI DRAVIDA AND TRIBES WELFARE OFFICER,
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent
in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 5/66469/2014 dated 18.02.2015 and quash the same
on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal
basis and consequently directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to drop all
further proceedings pertaining to the proposal of issuing assignment orders
to the third parties for the land already allotted to the petitioners.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravindan
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 5/66469/2014 dated 18.02.2015 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to drop all further proceedings pertaining to the proposal of issuing assignment orders to the third parties for the land already allotted to the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the members of Arunthathiyar Community (Scheduled Tribe) and they along with 62 persons were identified as beneficiaries for the free land assignment scheme introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the benefit of the Adhi Dravidar Community. The land comprised in Sy.Nos.8/2A, 2B, 10/2, 10/3A to a total extent of 1.38.0 hectares in Keela Mudukulathur Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District was allotted for the purpose of house site assignment to the people, who belong to the downtrodden community and the second respondent issued individual assignment orders to the petitioners in the year 1997, after converting the entire land into several house plots. Since then, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots. Since the petitioners are hailing from very poor family, they could not construct any permanent building on their respective sites immediately after the issue of the individual assignment orders. Therefore, they have put up only thatched houses in the lands allotted to them. Whileso, the third respondent, who is a designated authority to look after the schemes passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2015 in Na.Ka.No.5/66469/2014 and thereby cancelled the individual assignment orders issued to the petitioners.
3. According to the petitioners, the impugned order was passed on the basis of the recommendation made by the second respondent, as if the petitioners are not in occupation of the respective house sites allotted to them. Before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not issued with notice. Hence, they have come forward with this writ petition to quash the impugned order.
4. Pending writ petition, the petitioners have also filed a miscellaneous petition. In M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2015, interim stay was granted by this Court on 31.07.2015. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with the application in M.P.(MD).No.4 of 2015 for vacating the interim stay.
5. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that assignment patta in Na.Ka.A.No.166/97 dated 20.03.1998 has several conditions. The condition No.8 stipulates that the beneficiaries should construct a dwelling house in the lands allotted to them within a period of one year from the assignment of patta. But till date, the petitioners have not put up any house in the said house sites, as per the conditions mentioned in the assignment patta. Even in the writ petition, there is no pleading to the effect that the petitioners have constructed dwelling houses in the said properties and they are living in the said property from 1998. Since they are not having any house therein and are not living in the said property and also since they have not even produced a scrape of evidence to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. In fact, the Village Administrative Officer, Keela Mudukulathur Village made an inspection and submitted a report dated 17.07.2014, based on spot inspection and as per the village records, wherein, it is clearly stated that there was no building/house till 2014 and no construction was recorded in the said village. Based on the said report and ground reality, the respondent has rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that assignment patta was given to these petitioners as early as in the year 1998. One of the conditions stipulated in the patta is that the petitioners should put up construction in the respective plots allotted to them within a period of one year from the assignment of patta. Since the petitioners are economically poor, they have constructed thatched houses in their respective sites. But the second respondent, without inspecting the property, has passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioners. In this regard, the learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1041 (Malarkodi and Others Vs Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai-9 and Others) and submitted that before cancelling the patta, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners.
6. But the learned Government Advocate submitted that there are only thatched houses in the plots allotted to the petitioners and absolutely, no constructions were made in the sites allotted to them. Since the petitioners have not put up constructions in the respective plots allotted to them within a period of one year from the date of assignment of patta, the impugned order has been passed.
7. But irrespective of the submissions made on either side, I am of the opinion that before cancelling the assignment patta, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In this regard, a reference would also be made to the judgment relied on by the petitioners, wherein, reliance is made on the following portion.
"40. So far as the second question is concerned the proceeding dated 15.12.2003 for cancellation of patta also cannot be sustained by this Court. It is an admitted position that the pattas were granted under Revenue Standing Order-90. In RSO-90 paragraph 31 B provides for grant of such pattas, and it provides for the rules and instructions for the acquisition and assignment of house sites for the communities eligible for ameliorative measures by the Harijan Welfare Department and for landless labourers. Those rules and regulations in Appendix contain instructions for the grant of ameliorative measures to the communities eligible for such grant by Harijan Welfare Department. Certain conditions are given in Annexure-II which prescribe the statutory Form of Assignment Clause - 12 of the said Form suggests that in the event of breach by the grantee of any of the conditions or in the event of the grantee leaving the house unoccupied for a period of one year, the State or any officer authorized in that behalf may, unless the grantee furnishes valid reasons for such breach or for leaving the house unoccupied, cancel such grant. Therefore, cancellation, from the very nature of Clause 12, suggests a procedure of hearing and a kind of show cause upon the grantee asking him to explain why he has not complied with the conditions of grant. In the instant case, admittedly, the purported cancellation has been made without giving the grantees any chance of recording their say in the matter. This is clear from the cancellation order dated 15.12.2003."
8. The dictum laid down in the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since no opportunity was given to the petitioners, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent. The third respondent is directed to issue a fresh individual notice to the petitioners and thereafter, by giving an opportunity of personal hearing, pass appropriate orders,on merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
To 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADHI DRAVIDAR WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TALUK OFFICE MUDUKULATHUR, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE DISTRICT ADHI DRAVIDA AND TRIBES WELFARE OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. .