Madras High Court
Devi Cotton Mills Private Limited vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 January, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-01-2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.46501 of 2006
Devi Cotton Mills Private Limited.
Rep. by its Managing Director
K.Muthuswamy, Suriyampalayam Village,
R.N.Pudur, Erode-5. ....Petitioner
--Vs--
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District, Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Erode District, Erode. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the
respondents relating to the orders of the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.76940/98/D1, dated 21.09.2006 and Na.Ka.No.16273/83/D1 dated
09.07.1986 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr..Kandavadivel Doraisami
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Janaki,
Additional Government Pleader.
ORDER
The memo issued by the 3rd respondent in proceeding dated 21.09.2006 and the order dated 09.07.1986, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 09.07.1986 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Erode is in relation to the cancellation of assignment patta granted in favour of the original assignee. However, the subsequent impugned order dated 21.09.2006 is nothing but a memo issued by the District Revenue Officer, stating that the original order of cancellation dated 09.07.1986 was sent to the address provided and the same was returned. Prima facie this Court is of an opinion that the cancellation of assignment was done by the competent authority, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Erode District in order dated 09.07.1986 itself.
3. However, by virtue of the subsequent memo dated 21.09.2006, the present writ petition is filed by creating a cause of action. The very same writ petitioner filed W.P.No.9585 of 1998 and this Court http://www.judis.nic.in 3 directed respondents to furnish the copy of the order dated 09.07.1986 passed by the 3rd respondent, within a period of four weeks. It was projected by the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition that the copy of the cancellation order was not served to the writ petitioner.
4. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioner was not the original assignee and the original assignee, who belonged to the Depressed Class Community, sold the land assigned in his favour to the Non-Depressed Class person in violation of the assignment conditions. Thereafter, the writ petitioner purchased the same and therefore, the respondents had not initially communicated the cancellation order to the writ petitioner. However, the cancellation order was subsequently sent to the writ petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WP No.9585 of 1998.
5. May that it be, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the Government assigned an extent of 4.73 acres in Old Survey No.83/B, R.S.No.171 in Suriyampalayam Village, Erode District to one Mr.P.Kamatchi. The said Mr.P.Kamatchi belongs to Adi Dravidar Community. The assignment of lands were granted for the livelihood of the landless poor people. The agricultural lands are assigned at free of cost by the Government for the purpose of livelihood of those poor landless people and by imposing http://www.judis.nic.in 4 certain conditions. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in the assignment order are binding on the original assignee and in the event of any violation of the assignment conditions, the Government is empowered to restore the possession from the original assignee by issuing an order of cancellation. The conditions stipulated in the assignment reads as under:
“(1)milkhdk; KGtJk;
ePjpaw;wbjd;whfpYk; r';fjpg; gprfpdhyhtJ
bgha;aha;j; bjuptpj;jdhyhtJ. nkhrj;jpdhyhtJ
milkhdk; bra;a[k; cj;jpnahf!;jUf;F
15?tJ!;;lhz;o'; Mu;lu; vd;Dk; epiyahd
cj;jutpdhy; bfhLf;fg;gl;oUf;Fk; mjpfhu
tuk;g[fis kPwpahtJ milkhdk;
bra;ag;gl;lbjd;whfpYk; eltof;ifapy; fpukg;gprF
,Ue;jbjd;whfpYk; fhzg;gl;lhy; me;j milkhdk;
uj;J bra;ag;gLtjw;F cs;shFk; ;
(2) ftu;d;bkd;lhUila mDkjpapy;yhky;
ic& epyj;ij g;upoc&; FoahfthtJ Rnjr rk!;jhdj;ijr; nru;e;j Foahfthtjpuhj ahbjhU egUf;Fg; guhjPdk; bra;jhy;. milkhdk;
rl;lrk;kjkw;wjhFk; ;
(3) rt[f;F kuk; itj;J tsu;g;gjw;fhf ic& epyk; cgnahfpf;fg;gLk;gl;rj;jpy; ahbjhU ej;jj;jpypUe;J 200 f$ J}uj;Jf;Fs;shf mjpy;
FHpfshtJ rpW Fl;ilfshtJ njhz;lt[';TlhJ
ic& njhl;l';fSf;Fg; ghidfspy;bkhz;L ePu;
gha;r;rt[';TlhJ/ nknyfz;l J}uj;Jf;fg;ghy;
njhz;lg;gLk; rfy FHpfisa[k; rpW
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
Fl;ilfisa[k; mitfspypUe;J ePu; gha;r;rg;gl;l
brofs; K:d;W tUc&k; tsu;e;j gpwF
J}u;j;Jtplntz;Lk; ; nkYk;. ,e;j jpl;l';fspy;
vijahfpYk; kPwp ele;jhy;. gpujpgyd; xd;Wk;
bfhLf;fg;glhkny. milkhdk; uj;J
bra;ag;gLtjw;F cs;shFk; ;
(4) .. .. .. .. .. ..
(5) .. .. .. .. .. ..
(6) .. .. .. .. .. ..
(7) ic& epykhdJ jhH;e;j $hjpahiur;
nru;e;j ,ju egu;fSf;fd;wp kw;wtu;fSf;F
tpw;gid. jhdk;. bfhJit my;yJ ahbjhU
tiff;Fj;jif K:ykhfg; guhjPdk; bra;ag;gl;lhYk;.
rl;lrk;ge;jkhd g;uhb!!; vd;Dk;
fl;lisg;goahtJk; kw;wgoahtJ tpw;gid
bra;ag;gl;lJ fhuzkhfg; gl;lhjhUf;F my;yJ
mtUila rl;l rk;kjkhd thupRfSf;F my;yJ
mtu;fSila $hjpiar; nru;e;j ,ju egu;fSf;F
brhe;jkhapuhkw; ngha;tpl;lhYk;. epu;zapf;fg;gl;l
njjpapy; ftu;db
; kd;l; jPui
; tiar; brYj;jj;
jtwpg;ngha;tpl;lhYk; milkhdk; ftu;db
; kd;l;lhy;
jpUg;gp vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLtjw;F cl;lgl;ljhFk; ;
mg;nghJ ftu;d;bkd;lhu; ahbjhU gpujpgyd;
bfhLf;fhkny my;yJ fpiuag;gzj;jij thg!;
bra;ahkny ic& epyj;jpy; kWgoa[k; gpuntrpj;J
mijr; RthjPdg;gLjjpf;bfhs;s ghj;jpaij
cs;stu;fshthu;fs;/ MapDk;. ,e;jj; jilahdJ
epytpUj;jp rkkge;jkhd fld;fisf; Fwpj;j
Mf;od;goa[k; tptrhaf;fhuu;fSf;FFf; fld;
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
bfhLg;gijg;gw;wpa Mf;od;goa[k; gpu!;jhgepyj;ij
ftu;d;bkd;lhUf;F <Lfhl;of; bfhJit
itg;gjw;Fg; gpunahfg;glkhl;lhJ/ nkny
Fwpg;gpl;lgo milkhdj;ijj; jpUg;gp
vLj;Jf;bfhs;tjw;Fk; epyj;jpy; kWgoa[k;
gpuntrpf;Fk;go cj;jut[ bra;tjwF cs;s
mjpfhukhdJ butpdpa[ otpc&d; Mgp!uplj;jpy;
r';fpukpf;Fk;/”
6. The assignment condition categorically enumerates that the assignee has to utilize the land for agricultural purposes and in the event of violation of any of the conditions the assignment will be cancelled and the Government is empowered to restore the possession of the assigned property granted at free of cost.
7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner admitted the fact that the original assignment was made in favour of Mr.P.Kamatchi on 06.03.1924. Subsequently, the original assignee sold the property in favour of a non-depressed class person on 12.06.1968. Thereafter, the said land was purchased by the writ petitioner on 12.03.1975. Therefore, the writ petitioner had purchased the assigned land from a non-depressed class person during the year 1975. The original assignee sold the property to the non-depressed class person as early as on 12.06.1968 and therefore, the said sale was http://www.judis.nic.in 7 brought to the notice of the competent authorities, who in turn subsequently passed an order on 09.07.1986, cancelling the assignment patta granted in favour of the original assisgnee.
8. This being the admitted facts of the respective parties to the lis on hand, this Court is of an opinion that the assignment conditions are unambiguously violated by the original assignee. The land, which was assigned during the year 1924, is now coming within the corporation limits and the land value of the property increased considerably.
9. The extent of land is about 4 acres and 73 cents and such a vast extent of land assigned, which is now much valuable, cannot be dealt with improperly. Though the authorities competent cancelled the assignment in the year 1986, no action has been initiated to restore the possession. The authorities also were negligent in implementing the canellation order issued in proceedings dated 09.07.1986 and the petitioner was allowed to continue illegally.
10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to continue in the said premises http://www.judis.nic.in 8 pursuant to the sale executed by the vendor on 12.03.1975, the petitioner must be allowed to continue in the said premises.
11. It is relevant to point out that the land belongs to the Government. The land was classified as 'Ahadina'. The assignment was granted to an extent of 4.73 acres only for irrigation purposes. The original assignee, though utilized the land for cultivation, subsequently sold the same on 12.06.1968 to a non-depressed class person in violation of the conditions stipulated in the assignment order. Thus, the original assignee lost his right to possess the land as per the terms and conditions of assignment dated 06.03.1924. Once the conditions are violated, the Government is empowered to restore the possession from the original assignee.
12. Further it is to be construed that the land vest with the Government and not with the assignee. Such being the legal position, the authorities competent has to initiate action for taking possession of the property, which was sold illegally and in violation of the terms and conditions of the original assignment.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
13. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode filed a status report. The said report also reveals that an extent of 4.73 acres of land in Old S.F.No.83/B (Resurvey No.171) of Suriyampalayam Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District was conditionally assigned to one Mr.P.Kamatchi, a Scheduled Caste person in R.Dis.29/24 dated 06.03.1924 with specific conditions that the land should not be sold or alienated to other persons than Scheduled Caste and also stipulated that if any condition is violated, the land will be resumed without any compensation.
14. The land was sold to one Mr.Rangasamy, who is a non- Scheduled Caste person and Mr.Rangasamy sold this land to the writ petitioner through a registered document No.342/75 dated 13.03.1975.
15. During the course of review, in respect of the assignment cases, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode made out the facts and reported to the District Collector, Erode for cancellation of the conditional assignment granted initially in favour of one Mr.P.Kamatchi. A detailed examination of records in the proceedings of the Collector in Ref.No.16273/83/E1, dated 09.07.1986, orders were issued for resuming R.S.No.171(Old S.F.No.83/B) of Suriampalayam Village, Erode Taluk, and orders sent for service to the heirs of the demised assignee and buyer of the land, the writ petitioner herein. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
16. The writ petitioner has refused to receive the orders. Thus, the order was served by affixture on the survey stone of the land in question. Necessary changes were carried out in the land records and the field was converted into Assessed Waste Poramboke on 16.08.1986 itself.
17. Having known that the lands have been resumed, the writ petitioner remitted penalty to the Government as an encroacher that his occupation in the poramboke land is unauthorised and objectionable for a period of more than 11 years. Then, the writ petitioner has unauthorisedly leased out the land to Arthika Cotton Mills and was deriving income out of it.
18. This land is required for bona fide Government purposes for the construction of Government Buildings and no other suitable lands are available for the Government in that locality. Due to interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in W.P.No.46501 of 2006, the respondents are unable to evict the writ petitioner from the resumed land.
19. The District Revenue Officer, pursuant to the direction of this Court, inspected the files on 24.01.2019. The resumed land is fenced and the writ petitioner unauthorisedly leased out the land to Arthika Cotton Mills and http://www.judis.nic.in 11 is under their possession. Out of total 4.73 acres resumed land, 3.5 acres is vacant site and the writ petitioner has constructed structures in 55 cents and remaining 68 cents is being used as vehicle parking by the lessee.
S.F.No. Extent(Acre) Utility
171/1 0.13 Staff Quarters
171/1 0.04 Two Wheeler Parking
171/1 1.27 ½ Vacant Site
171/2 0.42 Godown
171/2 0.61 Bus Shelter
171/2 0.02 Two Wheeler Parking
171/2 2.23 ½ Vacant site
Total 4.73
20. The copy of 'D' Namuna condition Patta No.26 dated 06.03.1924 issued to P.Kamatch Parayan, copy of resume order Na.Ka.16273/1983, dated 09.07.1986, copy of village accounts (A-Registrar, Adangal, Field Measurement Book, village Map), copy of Board Standing Order No.15(41)(III), the eye sketch, and photographs of the field, are submitted for the perusal of this Court.
21. Though, the land has been resumed and classified as Government Poromboke (Assessed Waste) it is encroached by the petitioner and leased out to another person. Since it is necessary to take possession of the land for Government usage and for the purpose of public welfare. http://www.judis.nic.in 12
22. On a perusal of the entire documents now produced by the District Revenue Officer, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the land belongs to the Government classified as 'Poramboke'. The original assignee had violated the assignment conditions by executing sale deed in favour of a non-depressed class person on 13.6.1968. Thus all subsequent allegations are illegal and not binding on the Government and further the competent authority also issued orders, resuming the land by cancelling the original assignment during the year 1986. Further actions are pending on account of the interim stay granted in the present writ petition. This apart, the writ petitioner further leased out the property for his personal gains and enrichment.
23. Encroachment is a social evil. Encroachments can never be permitted by the competent authorities and the authorities competent must be vigilant in respect of the Government lands, water bodies and water resources. In the present case on hand, the land was assigned in favour of a depressed class person in the year 1924. However, the said depressed class person violated the conditions of assignment and sold the property to the larger extent of 4.73 acres in favour of a non-depressed class person. Now the property falls within the jurisdiction of Erode City Municipal Corporation and the said Poramboke land is needed for the developmental activities and http://www.judis.nic.in 13 for the purpose of providing various amenities and infrastructures to the public at large in that locality.
24. The Official, Mr.N.Balasubramaniam, Tahsildar, Erode District, who is present before this Court, also states that the said land is to be utilized for implementing various public schemes, including bus stand terminal at Erode.
25. This being the factum of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the writ petitioner has not established any semblance of legal right to consider the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the possession of the entire land and utilize the same for implementing the public welfare schemes and in the interest of public. The exercise of eviction of the writ petitioner and the restoration of public property is to be done within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
29-01-2019 Speaking order Index: Yes Internet: Yes ska/Svn http://www.judis.nic.in 14 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J ska/Svn To
1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District, Collector, Erode District, Erode.
3. The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.
W.P.No.46501 of 2006
29-01-2019 http://www.judis.nic.in