Madras High Court
M.R. Samiappan vs The Secretary To Government, Revenue ... on 23 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1988)1MLJ364
Author: V. Ramaswami
Bench: V. Ramaswami
JUDGMENT V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The appellant had encroached upon an extent of 61 cents in S.No. 19 of Maravapalyam village which was classified as Manthai poromboke in the revenue records. Some encroachment proceedings were taken against him. On 31.12.1971 he applied for the assignment of the land on the ground that he is a landless poor. This was rejected by the Collector in his proceedings R.C. No. 68096/71/B.7, dated 4.1.1972. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue noticed in their order dated 8.9.1972 that the petitioner owned two acres of land in the said village, that he has subsequently sold it to his wife and his sister and that from out of the said amount, he is running a tea shop and a bunk. It was also noticed that he was getting an income of Rs. 10 per day from the tea shop and the bunk, and inasmuch as the petitioner has sold the' land already owned by him and is now running a tea shop and a bunk, he cannot be considered to be a Bona Fide cultivator. On this reasoning, the Board of Revenue rejected the appeal petition. The petitioner preferred a further revision to the Government. The Government after calling for report from the officials concerned ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 2346, Revenue, dated 3.5.1973 as below:
The Government direct that an extent of 61 (sixty one) cents of land encroached upon by Thiru M.R. Samiappan in S.No. 19 of Maravapalayam village, Dharapuram taluk, Coimbatore Dt., be assigned in his favour as a Special Case on collection of market value of the land after transferring the classification of the land 'Manthai poromboke' to 'assessed waste' and subject to the usual conditions of assignment.
As per this order, the market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 3,185 in the Collector's proceedings dated 17.10.1975 and he was asked to remit the same in order to make the sale deed. The petitioner, however, contended that the value is not as much as Rs. 3,185 and it is much less and therefore prayed for refixing the value. Instead of refixing the value, the Government issued a notice on 10.10.1979 directing to show cause as to why the assignment should not be cancelled. After seeing the explanation, the Government ordered as follows:
The Government have re-examined the case with the connected records. It has been established beyond doubt that Thiru Samiappan was not eligible to get the assignment as he already owned 2 acres of patta land which he sold to his wife to render himself eligible for assignment of Order 61 cents in S. No. 19 of Maravapalayam. The assignment order in his favour is, therefore, irregular and is liable to be cancelled. The Government, accordingly, cancel the orders issued in G.O. Ms. 2346, Revenue, dated 3.5.1973 assigning an extent of Order 61 acre in S. No. 19 of Maravapalayam village, Dharapuram, in favour of Thiru Samiappan.
It may be seen from the Government Order that they have revised their earlier view not on any new material but on the same material which they had before on which they have ordered the assignment. As already stated, even at the time when the Board of Revenue dealt with the matter, the fact that the appellant herein had already sold two acres of his land to his wife and sister and was having a bunk shop from which he was earning Rs. 10 a day was noticed. In spite these facts the Government then considered that as a special case the assignment will have to be ordered as on collection of the full market value. If there was any difference in the valuation, that is different. But we do not see how the Government can revise their earlier order.
2. The learned Government Pleader contended that till the actual sale deed is executed after receipt of the consideration, the Government could set aside the order. It is true that the Government being an executive authority could cancel the earlier assignment order. But such cancellation should be for valid reasons and it cannot be done arbitrarily. In this case, as already stated, the land was in the occupation of the appellant for a long period prior to the B Memos were issued to him. Though the Government found that his occupation was objectionable and that he cannot be considered to be a landless poor, still the Government considered on the earlier occasion that as a special case, he should be assigned. No fresh facts had come to the notice of the Government to hold that the earlier order was made mistakenly or on wrong assumption of facts. Fully aware of all the circumstances mentioned in the show cause notice they have granted the assignment on the earlier occasion as a special case. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant gets a vested right in the property and therefore that order could not be varied to his disadvantage at any time. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed, the order of the learned single Judge and also the impugned order of the Government are set aside. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.