Ayothi, v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.08.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.NO.59 of 2013 Ayothi ....
Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate Compound Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai .
3. District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Special Tahsildar and Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
5. Indira Gandhi
6. Sanbakam
7. Parameswari
8. Elumalai
9. Indirani 10.Mahadevi 11.Sennammal 12.Rajakumari 13.Siyammal 14.Kuttammal 15.Vijaya 16.Devi 17.Sivasakthi 18.Kannaki 19.Kannammal 20.Mariyappan 21.Venkatesan 22.Saroja 23.Jayalakshmi 24.Kamala 25.Dhanam 26.Muniyammal
27.Indira 28.Annakili 29.Thamizharasi 30.Seethai 31.Vijaya 32.Dhanam 33.Pattu 34.Jayalakshmi 35.Kuppan 36.Angammal 37.Devaki 38.Anjalai 39.Sivakami 40.Thangili 41.Manickam 42.Meena 43.Mangai 44.Sumathi 45.Jaya 46.Yelagiriyan 47.Kuppu 48.Kullammal W/o Ammaiyappan 49.Saroja 50.Kullammal W/o Arumugam 51.Bhavani 52.ammavasai 53.Vasantha 54.Annakkili 55.Raja Mani 56.Ammini 57.Lakshmi 58.Ramalingam 59.Muniyammal 60.Siva 61.Mallika 62.Janaki 63.Nagammal 64.Poongavanam 65.Parameshwari 66.Sarasu 67.Indira 68.Muniyammal 69.Mariyammal 70.Mallika W/o Raman 71.Chennammal 72.Veni 73.Shanthi 74.Unnamalai 75.Muniyammal 76.Sivakami
77.Koothal 78.Sahayam 79.Apporvam 80.Jayanthi 81.Vedikundu 82.Muniyammal W/o Settu 83.Velu 85.Kasiyammal 86.Ravi 87.Malar 88.Chinnathai 89.Jayalakshmi 90.Kumari 91.Lakshmi 92.Radha 93.Anchala 94.Anjala W/o Potti 95.Baby 96.Murugan 97.Kamala 98.Kumari 99.Malaimani (Respondents 5 to 99 impleaded as per order dated 02.06.2014 in M.P.No.1/14 in W.P.No.59/2013 and dismissed as against RR5 to 99 vide court order dated 15.12.2014) ....
Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the assignment dated 8.12.1999 in favour of the 95 persons in respect of the lands situated in S.F.No.65/1A, 65/1B, 65/1C, 65/1C2 and 65/2, in Asuwanagasuranai village in Chengam Taluk at Tiruvannamalai District and reassign the lands to poor landless adi dravidars after an enquiry.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Sam Jayaraj Houston for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents:
Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate - for R1 to R4
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to cancel the assignment dated 8.12.1999 in favour of the 95 persons in respect of the lands situated in S.F.No.65/1A, 65/1B, 65/1C, 65/1C2 and 65/2, Asuwanagasuranai village in Chengam Taluk at Tiruvannamalai
District and reassign the lands to poor landless adi dravidars after an enquiry.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land was assigned in favour of 95 persons, who are all not eligible for such assignment as per the terms and conditions of the government scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the authorities have erroneously assigned the land to ineligible persons on collusion and extraneous consideration. The proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 01.10.2002 also states that the persons who are already in possession of lands and houses are granted assignment of these lands contrary to the terms and conditions of the government scheme for assignment to the landless poor people. However, in the proceedings dated 25.06.2004, the third respondent, District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer cancelled the assignment in respect of ten persons and in respect of other 85 persons, he has not taken any action and the inaction of the third respondent is contrary to the original findings made in the proceedings dated 01.10.2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the government land has been wrongly assigned in favour of ineligible persons and the third respondent also sent a report, but no action was taken by the District Collector and the District Revenue Officer in this regard.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying on the counter statement, stated that the prayer in the writ petition is already under active consideration of the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
5. This Court is of an opinion that if the relief sought for in the writ petition is already under active consideration, the respondents ought to have taken a decision in this regard based on the report submitted by the third respondent on 01.10.2002. However, it seems no action has been taken to cancel the assignment in favour of the ineligible persons. Hence, first respondent / district Collector is directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter of assignment of land to ineligible persons and review all such assignments and take appropriate action in respect of the officials who granted such illegal assignments. Accordingly, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to conduct enquiry in respect of the assignment of government land in favour of the ninety five persons and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to send the copies of the documents and the representation along with a copy of the order passed by
this Court.
3. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kst
1. The District Collector Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate Compound Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai .
3. District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Special Tahsildar and Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.
+1cc to Mr.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, S.R.No. 59469 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 59826 W.P.No.59 of 2013 CP(CO) GN(17/09/2018)