Ramakrishnan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA (Through Video Conferencing) Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.154 of 2018 in W.A.(MD)No.66 of 2018 and CMP(MD)No.9443 of 2018 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.

2.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

..

Review Applicants vs.

O.M.Kamala ..

Respondent Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with 114 C.P.C. to review the judgment dated 15.02.2018 made in W.A.(MD)No.66 of 2018.

Prayer in WA(MD). 66/ 2018 :

The writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of Section Patent Act, against the order dated 14/12/2016 in WP(MD)No. 1671 of 2010.

Prayer in WP(MD). 1671/ 2010 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of 2 nd respondent dated 03/08/2009 in his proceeding in Na.Ka. No.33803/08/C3 dated 03/08/2009 and quash the same and in consequence direct the 2nd respondent to issue house site pattas in favour of the petitioner for house plots bearing plot Nos. 13,14 and 15, measuring 3 cents each totaling 9 cents situated in L.K.T. Nagar comprised in S.NO.46/1 in Puliankulam Village, Madurai South Taluk Madurai District.

For Review Applicants :

Mr.A.K.Bhaskara Pandian, Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent :

Mr.R.Suryanarayanan

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.Sathyanarayanan, J.) By consent, this Review Application is taken up for final disposal.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this review application have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the order dated 14.12.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.1671 of 2010 as well as in the judgment dated 15.02.2018 made in W.A(MD)No.66 of 2018 and therefore, it is not necessary to re-state the facts once again.

3. Mr.A.K.Bhaskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review applicants/official respondents in the writ appeal would submit that the husband of the respondent, namely Mr.O.T.S.Mani purchased Plot Nos.13 and 14 in S.No.46/12, originally allotted in favour of one Pandi, S/o. Periyasamy Servai and Vellaisamy, S/o.Samaya Thevar from the subsequent purchasers in the year 1993 and 2008, vide Doc.Nos.1121/1993 and 116/2008 dated 18.09.1993 and 10.01.2018 respectively. The respondent also purchased Plot No.15, which was allotted in favour of one S.Kathamuthu, S/o. Sivasamy from subsequent purchaser, vide Doc.No.4988/1999 dated 30.06.1999 and admittedly, in violation of the conditions of assignment, alienations have been made and would further urge that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2485, Revenue Department dated 09.11.

1979, the land, which is the subject matter of alienation, shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years and in the event of assignee want to dispose of the land after expiry of the above period, prior permission should be obtained either from the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, then only sale can be effected and admittedly, no such permission has been obtained. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review applicants that despite very many alienations taken subsequent to the assignment, fact remains that revenue records have not been mutated and in the light of the conditions of assignment having been violated, it is open to the Collector to resume the lands in question and prays for reviewing of the impugned judgment.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Suryanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent is a widow and

she finds it extremely difficult to make both ends meet and the present property is the only property where she is residing and in the event of the review application being allowed, she will be dispossessed from the property in question. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that admittedly for very many decades, no steps have been taken to cancel the assignment and unless and until the assignment is cancelled in accordance with law, possession of lands in the occupation of the respondent cannot be resumed and would further add that since the said fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Judge and the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, the impugned order may not be reviewed and therefore, prays for dismissal of this review application.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it.

6. The facts remains that after the assignment, very many alienations have taken place and the assignments have not been cancelled and though the official respondents/appellants had realized that the conditions of assignment have been violated and that very many alienations have taken place, has responded to the situation belatedly and though fit to take action. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said fact and though observed that the appropriate authority is the Government, thought fit to uphold the contention of the respondent/writ petitioner and passed a positive order to grant patta in their favour and the said order is also confirmed by the Division Bench, vide impugned judgment passed in the writ appeal.

7. No doubt, it is open to the Collector to cancel the assignment, but the fact remains that assignments have not been cancelled for very many decades. Admittedly, the respondent is a widow, hailing from poor economic background and she is in possession of only a meager extent of land. This Court has already pointed out that unless and until the assignment is cancelled, subsequent alienee, namely the respondent, cannot be put to any hardship/difficulty. In the considered opinion of the Court, all the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge as well as the Division Bench in the impugned judgment and rightly reached the conclusion to uphold the claim of the respondent.

8. It is a well settled position of law that review is not an appeal in disguise and under the guise of arguing the review application, fresh arguments cannot be put forward on the merits of the main matter. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment.

9. In the result, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.

2.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.154 of 2018 jvm RAM-NM/RP/SAR 1/04.12.2018/4P/3C