Madras High Court
P.Subbulan vs The Commissioner Of Land Reforms on 26 November, 2024
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.25114, 25116, 25119, 25120 of 2023,
5730, 14724, 14725, 14727 of 2024
W.P(MD)No.29065 of 2023
P.Subbulan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk,
Chepauk - 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3.The Special Thasildar,
(Land Reforms),
Dindigul District
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani, Dindigul District
5.The Thasildar
Palani Taluk, Palani,
Dindigul District
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palani Division, Palani,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm )
1/27
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
7.The Inspector of Police
Palani Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
8.The Inspector of Police
Keeranur Police Station, Palani Division,
Dindigul District
9.The Village Administrative Officer,
Thumbalampatti Village,
Thoppampatti in Circle,
Akkaraipatti Group Village,
Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.928/2016/A5, dated 12.01.2022 by the fourth
respondent and quash the same in so far as petitioner concerned and
consequently directing the fourth respondent to survey the land and to fix the
four boundaries based on that to issue F patta in the petitioner's name based on
the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Dindigul, in his
proceedings MRIV/133/Dgl(N) dated 30.08.1980 within time frame by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivaprakash
For R1 to R5, R9 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Raghavendran
Government Advocate
For R6 to R8 : Mr.K.Gnana Sekaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm )
2/27
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
1.Kamala
2.Dharmadurai
3.Natchimuthu
4.Perumalammal
5.Seethaiyammal
6.Ajithkumar
7.Selvaraj
8.Saravanakumar
9.Suresh
10.Natchimuthu
11.Chellathal
12.Sivaraj
13.Aathiyappan
14.Karuppathal
15.Veeran
16.Perumal
17.Lakshmi
18.Murugan
19.Mageshwari
20.Andavan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm )
3/27
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
21.Veluchamy
22.Mani
23.Karuppiah
24.Sivasanmugam
25.Pappathi Cinnan
26.Senthilkumar
27.Rajamanickam
28.Pitchaimuthu
29.Sivaraj
30.Perumal
31.Senniyappan
32.Krishnasamy
33.Murugesan
34.Marimuthu
35.Palanisamy
36.Krishnasamy
37.Vijayaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk,
Chepauk - 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm )
4/27
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3.The Special Thasildar,
(Land Reforms),
Dindigul District
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani, Dindigul District
5.The Thasildar
Palani Taluk, Palani,
Dindigul District
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palani Division, Palani,
Dindigul District.
7.The Inspector of Police
Palani Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
8.The Inspector of Police
Keeranur Police Station, Palani Division,
Dindigul District
9.The Village Administrative Officer,
Thumbalampatti Village,
Thoppampatti in Circle,
Akkaraipatti Group Village,
Palani Taluk, Dindigul District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.928/2016/A5, dated 12.01.2022 by the fourth
respondent and quash the same as illegal in so far as petitioners concerned and
consequently directing the fourth respondent to survey the land and to fix the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm )
5/27
W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
four boundaries along with guide line value based on that to issue F patta in the
petitioners' name based on the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (Land
Reforms), Dindigul, in his proceedings MRIV/133/Dgl(N) dated 30.08.1980
within time frame by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivaprakash
For R1 to R5, R9 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Raghavendran
Government Advocate
For R6 to R8 : Mr.K.Gnana Sekaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD)No.29065 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 12.01.2022 and consequently, directing the fourth respondent to survey the land and to fix the four boundaries along with guide line value and based on that to issue F patta in the petitioners' name in pursuance of the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Dindigul, dated 30.08.1980, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 12.01.2022 and consequently, directing the fourth respondent to survey the land and to fix the four boundaries along https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 6/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 with guide line value in pursuance of that to issue F patta in the petitioners' name based on the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Dindigul, dated 30.08.1980 within time frame by this Court.
3. In view of the commonality of law and facts involved in the writ petitions, common order is passed.
4. The lands in Thumbalampatti Village, Palani Taluk, to an extent of 9.325 standard acres were declared as surplus lands under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. After compliance of all the mandatory requirements of the said Act, the 18 (1) notification was issued in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 13.12.1978. The land owner, M/s.Valiammal, challenged the proceedings before various fora, which all ended in favour of the Government. One more fact which needs to be referred here is that the subsequent purchasers also challenged the land ceiling proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.11694 of 2012 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. After the declaration of the surplus lands and during the pendency of the litigations, the Government initiated assignment proceedings for assignment of the surplus lands to the eligible poor people under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The petitioners applied for assignment to the Special Thasildar, Land Reforms, Dindigul. After due enquiry, the petitioners were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 7/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 assigned lands as per the order of the Special Thasildar, dated 30.08.1980. Various extents of lands in various survey numbers were assigned to the petitioners vide order, dated 30.08.1980, and suffice to say that the total extent of 36.09 acres of land was assigned to the petitioners (38 persons) in the said proceedings. According to the petitioners, in pursuance of the assignment order, the petitioners carried on agricultural activities in the assigned lands and they continuously approached the authorities for over decades for issuance of 'F' patta in their favour for the lands assigned to them. The Tamil Nadu Vivasayigal Sangam took up the issue and approached the authorities for issuance of 'F' patta in favour of the petitioners. On 05.03.2020, the Sub Collector, Palani, informed the Secretary of the said Sangam that after the disposal of the writ petition, steps would be taken to issue patta for the assigned lands. While so, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.29065 of 2023, filed W.P(MD)No.20051 of 2021 for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to demarcate the exact boundaries of the lands assigned to him in S.No.334/3A, in Thumbalapatti Village, Palani Taluk in pursuance of the proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 30.08.1980 and issue F patta to him. During the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Special Government pleader submitted to the Court that the third respondent in his proceedings, dated 12.01.2022, cancelled the assignment orders issued in favour of the petitioners. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 8/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 same. The petitioners therefore filed the above writ petitions for the aforesaid relief.
5. The respondents filed counter by way of vacate stay application and additional counter. The respondents traced the history of the case and submitted that the assignment proceedings could not be proceeded further because of the pendency of the proceedings in various judicial fora. According to the respondents, the surplus lands declared in Thumbalapatti Village, were under the custody of the Government. According to the respondents, the petitioners repeatedly requested for grant of 'F' patta and pressurised the respondents for issuance of the same. The petitioners’ representation was considered and finally assignment orders were cancelled by the impugned order. The respondents in the additional counter affidavit stated that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of appeal before the Divisional Revenue Officer, who was the appellate authority. The respondents further submitted that under Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, the Government was vested with powers to resume the surplus lands. The respondents submitted that the lands would vest absolutely with the assignees only after the value of the land, the building, and the trees thereon was paid in full or after the expiry of a period of 20 years from the date of assignment whichever was later. The respondents further stated that if at any time before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 9/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 expiry of the aforesaid period, the land assigned were required for any public purpose, the assignment shall be modified or cancelled by the Government and the lands resumed by the Government. The respondents further stated that the subject lands were valuable lands lying within 5 kms from Palani Town and 5 Kms from Thoppampatty Union Office, and also situated just adjacent to the Palani Dharapuram Highway Road. The respondents stated that the Government was seriously considering the formation of Palani as new District and therefore, in the absence of suitable lands, the subject lands were needed by the Government for construction of District Collector's Office, District Court and all other Government Offices with all basic facilities in the subject properties. The respondents therefore stated that the impugned order was just and valid and hence did not call for any interference. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents had all through taken a specific stand before this Court that the surplus lands were assigned to the landless poor as early as in the year 1980, and on that basis obtained favourable orders from this Court. While so, the respondents without any justifiable or valid reasons passed the impugned order thereby deceiving not only the Court, but also the public, the original owner and subsequent purchasers of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 10/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 that inspite of the assignment orders issued in favour of the petitioners and for no fault of theirs, but only due to the inaction of the respondents for the past 40 years, the proceedings were not concluded. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in possession and cultivating the lands for several decades and therefore, the cancellation order was untenable and unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 5 and 9 submitted that the impugned order cannot be found fault with because the Government was vested with powers to modify or cancel the assignment under Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, on the conditions stipulated therein. The learned Additional Advocate General referring to the conditions stipulated in the assignment order, dated 30.08.1980, submitted that the assignment had not come into force and therefore, the Government had power to resume the lands by invoking Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if for any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 11/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 reason, this Court were to hold that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed, then a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the assignment of any other lands in Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if the petitioner makes an application/representation for assignment of lands in Periyampatti Village, the same would be considered by the Government.
9. Heard both sides and perused the available materials on record.
10. The petitioners are aggrieved by the cancellation of the assignment order issued in their favour as early as on 30.08.1980, by the impugned order, dated 12.01.2022. The petitioners seek for 'F' patta on the basis of the assignment order, dated 30.08.1980 issued by the Special Thasidar, Land Reforms, Dindigul. It is undisputed that the lands in S.Nos.331/1, 333/2, 334/1, 334/3A, 334/3B, 335/1, 336/1 and 338, measuring a total extent of 36.09 acres, were declared as surplus holdings of one P.Valliammal under 18(1) notification, dated 13.12.1978. It is pertinent to note that the original land owner as also subsequent purchasers filed several litigations before various fora which ended in favour of the Government. The Government conducted an enquiry under Rule 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, for identification of eligible beneficiaries for assignment of the surplus https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 12/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 lands. Thereafter, the assignment order under Rule 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, was passed. The petitioners claimed 'F' patta on the basis of the said assignment order, but the respondents instead cancelled the assignment order and resumed the lands to the Government. It is therefore to be seen if the cancellation of the assignment order, dated 30.08.1980 is justified and valid in law.
11. To consider the said issue, it will be relevant to refer to the assignment order here.
"Proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Dindigul Present Thiru. S. Padmanabhan MRIV/133/Dgl (N) Dated 30.8.80 Sub: Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (DSL) Rules 65 - Madurai District Palani Taluk: Thmalapatti Village - Surplus lands declared for the holding of smt. P. Valliammal W/o Late periyasamy Gounder of Thalapatti village assignment ordered.
Ref: 1.Notification under Section 18(1) of the Act published in the tamil Nadu Government Gazottc. dt. 13.12.78
2. Other connected Record.
-----
An extent of 36.09 Acres of lands was declared as surplus firm the holdings of Thirumathy P. Valliammal w/o.Late periyasamy Gounder Reforms (FCL) Act 59/61 an amended by Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 13/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 S.No.331/1 Government Dry 4.82 Acres 333/2 " 3.95 "
334/1 " 0.05 "
334/3A " 0.77 "
334/3B " 8.57 "
335/1 " 3.62 "
336/1 " 4.54 "
338 " 9.77 "
36.09 "
An Thirumalapatti Village Palani Taluk Madurai District in Notifica tion under action 18 (1) published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Dt 13.12.78 The correct vey field of the surplus land deanring Acr.4.02 in S.No.333/1 and Not S.No.331/1, Proposals for Publishing and amendent to the 18 (1) notification being dealt with in the M.R.I.Branch.
2. Notice in Form 'B' inviting application from the clieble persons war, published in the village in 18.8.79 and 7.12.79 Applications were received from 83 persons A notice in form 'D' fixing eligibility for enquiry war. published in the village in 18.8.79 and 7.12.79 An enquiry under rule 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (DSL) Rules 1965 an amended by G.O.M.No.1353 Revenue dt.21.6.79 was conducted on 19.6.80 & 25.6.80 The eligible of each of the applications in dealt with the annexure.
3. I hereby decide under rule 8(a) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (DSL) Rule a1965 that the persons as indicated hold may be assigned the land noted against cach subject to the terms and conditions in DSL Rules.
THIRUMALAPATTI VILLAGE
-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c S.I.No. D.Notice Name of the assignee S.No. Classif Extent Gategory
-ication Assigned under rule https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 14/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 5(1) of T.N.L.R.DSL.
Rules 1965 as amended.
-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c
1. 71 Karuppan samban 333/1 Dry 1.00 (iv) S/o.Muthusamy (Part)
54. Pudur.
2. 73 Murugan s/o.Karuppan 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti.
3. 74 Dhasan S/o.Velan Madari 1.00 (iv) Thummalapatti
4. 75 Karuppan S/o.Kali Madari 1.00 (iv) Thummalapatti
5. 76 Natchi S/o.Subban Madari 0.82 (iv) Thummalapatti 4.82
6. 4 Subban S/o.Nachi Madari 333/2 1.00 (iv) Thummalapatti. (Part)
7. 5 Karuppan S/o. Velan 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
8. 7 Thanasi S/o.Nachi 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalpatti
9. 17 Murugan S/o. Venkittan 0.95 (iv) Madari Thummalpatti 3.95
10. 18 Subbulan S/o.Packilan 334/3A 0.77 (iv) Madari Thummalpatti (Part)
11. 12 V.Arumugam S/o. 334/3B 1.10 (iv) Venkittai Madari (Part) Thummalpatti https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 15/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
12. 52 Veeran S/o.Palani 334/3B 1.10 (iv) Madari Thummalpatti (Part)
13. 53 Karuppan Madari S/o. 1.10 (iv) sangili Madari, Paraipatti
14. 54 Maran Madari S/o.Sanglili 1.10 (iv) Madari, Paraipatti
15. 55 Aran Madari S/o.Sadayan 1.10 (iv) Madari, Paraipatti
16. 57 Bomman Madari 1.07 (iv) S/o.Goundan Madari, Paraipatti
17. 59 Karuppan S/o. Subban 334/3B Dry 1.00 Madari Paraipatti 334/1 Dry 0.05
18. 61 Sangaran S/o. Thiruman 1.00 (iv) Madari Paraipatti.
8.62
19. 21 Raman S/o.Muthan 335/1 0.92 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti
20. 23 Periyakaruppan S/o. 0.90 (iv) Nallan Madari.
Thummalapatti
21. 24 Kannan S/o. Subban 0.90 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti
22. 26 Karuppan S/o.Bodi 0.90 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti 3.62
23. 1 Murugan S/o. Veeran 336/1 0.94 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti (Part) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 16/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
24. 2 Vellaisamy S/o. Velan 0.90 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti
25. 19 Kuppan S/o.Nallan 0.90 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti 26 27 Ramasamy S/o.Aran 0.90 (iv) Thummalapatti 27 28 Karuppan S/o.Nallan 0.90 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti 4.54
28. 8 Pathavu S/o. Muthan 338 1.00 (iv) Madari. Thummalapatti Part
29. 9 Chinnan S/o.Subban 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
30. 22 Karuppan S/o.Mondivelan 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
31. 29 Palani S/o.Karunganni 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
32. 30 Murugan S/o.Natchi 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
33. 32 Murugan S/o.Kuppan 338 Dry 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti Part
34. 34 Velan Madari S/o. Nallan 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
35. 38 Perumalsamy S/o.Natchi 1.00 (iv) Madari Thummalapatti
36. 67 Palani.S/o.Natchi Madari 1.00 (iv) Thummalapatti
37. 68 Subban Madari 0.77 (iv) S/o.Kubban Madari Thummalapatti https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 17/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
4. The land Value instalment to be remitted by the assignees will be intimated in the notice in Form E. The assign- ment will take effect only on delivery of possession of the land following execution of deed of assignment in Form F after remittance of the first instalment of the land value. If payment is not made as required in the notice within the time specified this order will cease to be valid and operative as far as the defaulter is concerned and no further notice will be issued to them.
SD Special Tahsildar (L.Ref.) Dindigul.
To The applicant (93) Copy to the Tahsildar, Palani.
Copy to the Special Revenue Inspector (A), Palani for Collecting the first instalment of the land value. Copy to the special Deputy Surveyer Dindigul II for pre-
paring of sub-division recorder.
Copy submitted to the Additional Secretary, Board of Revenue (Land Reforms), Chepauk, Madras - 5.
Spares 5 copies."
12. It is relevant to note here the last paragraph of the assignment order. It is clearly stated that land value instalments were to be remitted by the assignees and further the assignment would take effect only on delivery of possession of the land following execution of deed of assignment in Form F. It is therefore clear that unless form F assignment deed was executed, possession would not be delivered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 18/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
13. Assuming that possession was hand over to the petitioners and the petitioners were cultivating the lands for over 40 years, as contended by them, it is to be seen if the documents filed by the petitioners establish the same. The only document filed before this Court in support of the said contention is the report of the Village Administrative Officer, dated 27.11.2019. The village Administrative Officer certified that around 40 persons belonging to the village were cultivating corn, horse gram and green gram etc. The Village Administrative Officer also certified that the lands were classified as Punjai Upari (surplus). It is therefore clear from the classification of the lands as Punjai Upari (surplus) that the lands were Government lands and the possession, if any of the petitioners were not in pursuance of valid possession taken from the Government. The very same Village Administrative Officer issued similar certificate for Fasli year 1429 which corresponds to 2019. Even in the Adangal extract of Fasli year 1429, the classification of the lands is Punjai Upari (surplus). Except the said documents, the petitioners have not filed any documents to establish their possession and cultivation for 40 years.
14. The fourth respondent in the impugned order found on the basis of the conditions attached to the assignment order that the assignments had not come into force, that the lands were barren lands classified as ryotwari surplus and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 19/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 that the lands were not cultivated for the over 20 years. On such factual finding the fourth respondent found that the petitioners had no right to claim 'F' patta and cancelled the assignment.
15. It is seen that even as per the assignment order, dated 30.08.1980, the assignment would take effect only on delivery of possession following the execution of deeds of assignment in form F. As admittedly, the assignment deed in form F was not executed, the lands could not have been delivered to the petitioners. The very prayer in the writ petition shows that the form F assignment deed was not executed and therefore even as per the conditions attached to the assignment deed, dated 30.08.1980, the assignment had not taken effect. Once the assignment has not taken effect, the Government is well within its right to invoke Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. At risk of repetition, in the present case, the assignment order, dated 30.08.1980, was itself issued on condition that it would take effect only on delivery of possession following the execution of deeds of assignment in form F. As the from 'F' assignment deed was never executed and possession continued with the Government as borne out by the classification in the revenue records as ryotwari surplus, the cancellation of the assignment and resumption of the lands by the Government invoking Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, cannot be faulted. It would be relevant to refer here to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 20/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, “9. Conditions of assignment.
(iii)[(a)] [Renumbered as sub-clause (a) by GO. Ms. No. 1358, dated the 21st June 1979.] The land will vest absolutely in the assignee only after the value of the land and the buildings and trees thereon is paid [in full or after the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of assignment whichever is later.] [The words 'in full or after whichever is later' substituted by G. O.Ms.No 271/87,dated the l2th November 1987.]
(b) [Inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 1358, dated the 21st June 1979.] [If at any time before the expiry of the period specified in sub-clause (a) above,] [The words 'if at any time .... sub-clause (a) above' substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 271/87, dated the 12th November 1987.] the land assigned is required for any public purpose, the assignment shall be modified or cancelled and the land shall be resumed by Government. In such cases [the annual value fixed under Schedule III of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961),] [The words 'the annual value (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961)' substituted by G. O. Ms. No. 391, dated the 14th March 1985.] for use of the land from the date of assignment to the date of resumption by Government and the loans and advances, if any, granted for the improvement of the land on the security of the land will be recoverable from the assignee. Subject to adjustment of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 21/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 such dues, the assignee shall be entitled to refund of the instalments of land value paid by him and reimbursement of the cost of any permanent improvement effected or any structure such as wells, buildings, etc., erected on the land at his own expense for agricultural purposes or for his own residence.” It is seen that as per Section 9(iii)[(a)&(b)] of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, assignment can be modified or cancelled and the lands resumed to the Government at any time before the expiry of the period stipulated in Sub-clause (a) extracted above, if it was required for any public purpose. In the case on hand, as the conditions of assignment were not complied with, the lands did not vest in the petitioner's, and therefore the Government was well within it's powers to invoke Section 9(iii)(b). In the counter of the respondents it was clearly stated that there was a proposal to form Palani as a new District and as no suitable lands were available for construction of District Collector's Office, District Court and all other Government Offices, the subject lands were needed for the aforesaid public purpose. As Section 9(iii)(b) permits resumption of lands for public purpose, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments in support of his case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 22/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
(a) The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs Narendra Diary Farms Private Limited and others, reported in AIR 1987 MAD 161.
(b) Sivakumar and others Vs The District Collector (W.P(MD)Nos.23474 of 2018 etc., batch)
(c) Ravidran @ Ravichandran and others Vs The District Collector and others (W.P(MD)Nos.10235 of 2022 etc., batch)
17. I have gone through the said judgments and I find that they are not applicable to the facts of the case.
18. In the case of the State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs Narendra Diary Farms Private Limited and others, reported in AIR 1987 MAD 161, the issue was whether the Government was jusitifed in abandoning the acquisition proceedings and resorting to land ceiling proceedings for taking over the lands. The facts are completely different inasmuch as the possession of the lands were initially taken under the land acquisition proceedings by the respondents and thereafter, the acquistion proceedings were abandoned and the land ceiling Act was initiated, in such context, the Court held that the acquistion of lands for the purpose of irrigation scheme under the provisions of Land Ceiling Act amounted to colourable exercise of power by the Government. In my view, said judgment does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. In the case of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 23/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 Sivakumar and others Vs The District Collector (W.P(MD)Nos.23474 of 2018 etc., batch), this Court on facts found that the assignments had taken place between 1998 and 2000 and F pattas were also granted to many of the petitioners. One of the crucial facts in the said case was that the land owner was allowed to retain 700 acres of land against the provisions of the ceiling Act and therefore taking into account the entire facts of the case, the Court held that the cancellation of assignment was illegal and unjustified. The other judgment also in my view does not apply to the facts of this case as the facts are completely different, in the sense that the assignment inculminated in 'F' patta and thereafter, the cancellation orders were passed cancelling the assignment and therefore the Court set aside the cancellation orders and remited the matter for fresh consideration.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if, for any reason, this Court was inclined to dismiss the writ petition, a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the assignment of alternate lands to the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions submitted that the lands were available in Periyampati Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District and therefore, if the petitioners make a request/ representation for assignment in said village, the same would be considered by the Government. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 24/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024
20. It is seen that the assignment order was issued as early as on 30.08.1980, and only due to the pendency of litigations in various fora, the assignment proceeding could not be taken to its logical end, and therefore the petitioners cannot be blamed for the delay. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider favourably the request/representation of the petitioners for assignment of alternate lands in Periyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, where according to the learned Additional Advocate General lands are available. The petitioners are directed to submit the application/representation to the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall pass favourable orders on the representation of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
21. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.11.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no SN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 25/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 To:
1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chepauk - 600 005.
2.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Special Thasildar, (Land Reforms), Dindigul District
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District
5.The Thasildar Palani Taluk, Palani, Dindigul District
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani Division, Palani, Dindigul District.
7.The Inspector of Police Palani Town Police Station, Dindigul District.
8.The Inspector of Police Keeranur Police Station, Palani Division, Dindigul District
9.The Village Administrative Officer, Thumbalampatti Village, Thoppampatti in Circle, Akkaraipatti Group Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 26/27 W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 N.MALA, J.
SN W.P.(MD)Nos.29065 of 2023 and 17102 of 2024 26.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:52 pm ) 27/27