K.Munusamy v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.No.39332 of 2018 K.Munusamy
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The District Collector of Tiruvannamalai, Collector Office, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. 3.
The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.KA2/2232/2013, which cancelled the assignment patta for the property situated at old survey No.62/1 and new survey No.62/5 of an extent of Hectare 0.03.0 Ares and also direct the respondents to hand over the patta land to the petitioner.
1/6
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Suseela Devi For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raj, AGP
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the assignment patta in respect of the property situated at Old S.No.62/1 and New S.No.62/5 to an extent of Hectare 0.03.0 Ares instead of recovering possession from the third parties and to consequently, direct the respondents to hand over the patta land to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he claims to be belonging to a scheduled caste community. Certain lands in Agaram Sippanthi Village, Tiruvannamalai were earmarked for depressed class darkhast (panchami reserved land). Even as per the revenue records, the said lands were panchami lands during 1927. In 2003, the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent seeking for assignment of land for an extent of 0.03.0 Ares situated in old S.No.62/1 and the petitioner's application was forwarded to the 3rd respondent, who in turn, allotted the same to the petitioner after making sub-division as survey No.62/5 and patta No.321 dated 01.09.2003 2/6
was also issued. After securing patta to the land, the petitioner had taken possession, started cultivating the land and paid tax to the revenue officials periodically. A few years later, due to an attempt made by some third parties to encroach the subject property, the petitioner sent a representation dated 30.08.2012 to the 1st respondent to recover his patta land. As the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1188 of 2013 before this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 and the Superintendent of Police, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai to recover the subject property from some private parties and hand over the same to the petitioner. Further, this Court, by order dated 20.12.2016, directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the said representation of the petitioner dated 30.8.
2012 within a time frame. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 1st respondent issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance on 08.6.2017 and the petitioner also appeared before the 1st respondent and gave his written submissions. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order adverse to the interests of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned 3/6
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record, more particularly the order impugned.
4. It is not in dispute that the land in question is situated within half a Mile from the railway station. Therefore, the respondents themselves have admitted that due to certain lapses on the part of the officials in granting the assignment to the petitioner, the assignment was cancelled. It is also not in dispute that the Writ petition was filed in the year 2018 and till date, the petitioner is out of possession of the land allotted to him. Further, this Court in the order dated 08.07.2021 passed the following order: "Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.
On hearing him and after having gone through the import of the impugned order, this Court feels that, apart from the petitioner, some other individual got assignment from the very said survey number i.e.,S.No.62/1 which was initially as S.No.61/1 and whether those assignment had been cancelled or not has to be ascertained. That apart, in the impugned order, the District Collector has stated that, there are 17 encroachers in the subject land or the adjacent or nearby lands and those encroachments were directed to be removed by the orders impugned passed by the District Collector, pursuant to which, those 17 encroachers have been removed from the said land or not also has to be ascertained.
filed by the respondents during the next hearing date."
5. Therefore, it is evident that the land assigned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled along with similarly placed persons. In other words, there is no discrimination in cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioner. Even in the impugned order, reference was made to similar cancellation orders passed in respect of assignment of other lands assigned in favour of persons similarly placed like the petitioner.
6. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the 1st respondent, as the same is also in tune with Clause 15 of the Revenue Standing orders.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.08.2024 skt Index : Yes (or) No : Yes (or) No Speaking Order : Yes (or) No M.DHANDAPANI, J.
5/6
skt To 1.
The District Collector of Tiruvannamalai, Collector Office, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. 3.
The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. and WMP.No.39332 of 2018 09.08.2024 6/6