M.Mohamaded Yasin v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI M.Mohamaded Yasin
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
2.
The District Revenue Officer, Office of District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
4.
The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram Taluk, Sankarapuram.
5.
The Revenue Inspector, Alattur, Kallakurichi.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of order dated 03.07.2022 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa2/5126/2021 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct 1st respondent to 1/8
reassign the land comprised in S.No.80/1, 80/2, 78/6, 69/2, 52, 68/2, 71/1, 72/2 situated at Alattur Village, Kallakurichi District to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan, GA
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in respect of the proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa2/5126/2021 dated 03.07.2022, quash the same and to consequently, direct the 1st respondent to reassign the subject lands to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the agricultural lands measuring an extent of 36 acres and 51 cents comprised in S.Nos.80/1, 80/2, 78/6, 69/2, 52, 68/2, 71/1, 72/2 situated at Alattur Village, Kallakurichi District originally belonged to one Musthafa Shaibu, the great grandfather of the petitioner and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands during his life time and after his demise, his two sons namely Sayed Shaibu and Abdul Rahuman inherited the subject property and enjoyed the same. The said Abdul Rahuman is none other than the grandfather of the petitioner. While so, due to 2/8
famine, the legal heirs of the said Musthafa Shaibu left for Mumbai and therefore, for non payment of Land Tax dues for a long period of time, the respondents brought the subject property to public auction and as no one came up to purchase the said property, the same was retained with the Government with a classification of Punjai Tharisu. After knowing the same, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 11.05.2021 before the respondents seeking for reassignment of the subject property with an undertaking to pay the entire arrears and necessary penalty charges for reassignment of the subject lands. On receipt of the said representation, though several correspondences have taken place in between the respondents, no final order has been passed on the said representation.
Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.2011 of 2022 and this Court, vide order dated 09.02.2022 directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation and in compliance of the same, the 1st respondent has passed the present impugned order, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa2/5126/2021 dated 03.07.2022, rejecting the petitioner's claim for reassignment of the subject lands. Challenging the same, the present Writ petition is filed.
3/8
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that, it is true that some portion of the subject lands were occupied by the third persons, however, the major grievance of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner himself come forward to pay the entire arrears and sought for reassignment of the subject lands, it is the duty cast upon the Government to reassign the lands in favour of the petitioner, on receipt of the entire arrears amount and the necessary penalty charges and after evicting the encroachments made in the said lands. While so, in the case in hand, the 1st respondent, without doing so, has rejected the petitioner's claim merely on the ground that some third persons have encroached the major portion of the subject lands and they are in possession for a long period of time and some of them have also obtained patta in their favour and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for reassignment of the subject lands, which is not sustainable. Hence, he prayed for allowing this Writ petition.
4. On the above said contentions, heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 4/8
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the subject lands were owned by the petitioner's great grandfather namely Musthafa Shaibu and due to non payment of the Land tax dues, the same were taken over by the Government, as has been seen from the South Arcot District Gazette dated 25.10.1922 and the same was also not disputed by the petitioner as well and there was no representation either from the said Musthafa Shaibu or from any of his legal heirs till 2020. While so, after a lapse of about 10 decades, the petitioner has approached the revenue officials, claiming to be the legal heir of the said Musthafa Shaibu and sought for reassignment of the subject lands, which is not sustainable.
Further, the petitioner's application was rejected by the 1st respondent, vide the present impugned order, based on the report filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, in which it is clearly stated that, there are several encroachments in the subject lands and some of them have already obtained patta in their favour in respect of some portions of the subject lands and it is impossible for the Government to evict the persons, who are in possession of the subject lands and cultivating the same for the past several years and further neither the petitioner nor his family members are in possession of the subject lands.
impugned in this Writ petition.
6. Further, though the petitioner claims to be one of the legal heirs of the said Musthafa Shaibu, however, the act of the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the officials, after a lapse of about 10 decades, without approaching the Civil Court to establish his right over the subject lands, straight away approaching the revenue officials merely by filing an application for reassignment of the subject lands, is not sustainable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this Writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout the remedy in the manner known to law.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
12.10.2022 skt Speaking Order : Yes/ No Index : Yes/ No To 1.
The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
6/8
2.
The District Revenue Officer, Office of District Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
4.
The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram Taluk, Sankarapuram.
5.
The Revenue Inspector, Alattur, Kallakurichi.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt 7/8
12.10.2022 8/8