Nagamani v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 26.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P (MD) No.17317 of 2015 M.P (MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2015 & WMP (MD) No. 525 of 2016 ---
1. Nagamani
2. S.Paraniselvi
3. Thayammal
4. Jayalakshmi
5. Arasammal
6. Rajammal .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14752/2007/C dated 03.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's Plot Nos.10,13,14,15,16 and 47 comprised in Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arappalayam Main Road, Madurai-625 016.
For Petitioners :
Mr.V.Thirumal For Respondents :
Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the proceedings dated 03.08.2015 of the third respondent and after quashing the same seek for a consequential order forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Plot Nos.10,13,14,15,16 and 47 comprised in Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arappalayam Main Road, Madurai-625 016.
2.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are residing in Plot Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, ,16 and 47 respectively which were allotted to them by the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 20.07.2010. According to the petitioners, by the said proceedings dated 20.07.2010, the fourth respondent has totally allotted 42 plots in favour of the beneficiaries, including the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners were also issued patta to fortify their title. While so, on the basis of some complaints received by the respondents with regard to allotment of plots, the fourth respondent has submitted a report to the second respondent and based on the same, the third respondent has cancelled the patta issued to the petitioners and others in his proceedings dated 28.09.
2011 without any notice to the petitioners. Challenging the same, one of the allottes has filed WP No. 12699 of 2011 before this Court and by order dated 03.04.2012, this Court set aside the order dated 28.09.2011 of the third respondent. Inspite of the same, the third respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 03.08.2015 refusing to demarcate the lands allotted in their favour..
3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even though plots have been allotted in their favour, inspite of their request, the plots have not been properly demarcated and there is enormous delay on the part of the department in doing so. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents relied on the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and opposed the writ petition. According to the learned Government Advocate, as against the impugned order, an appeal lies before the District Revenue Officer and without exhausting such remedy, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition. Further, the impugned order has been passed after conducting a detailed enquiry with reference to the encroachment of the government lands made by some of the beneficiaries of the plots. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court..
5. I heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed. It is seen from the impugned order that as per the scheme formulated by the Government, plots have been allotted in favour of 42 persons including the petitioners in the region of 1 cent per person. After such allotment, it came to light that several persons, who were allotted the plots, are ineligible for such allotment as per the government norms. In the counter, specific reference made with regard to allotment in favour of one Amirtha Kani, wife of Gunasekaran, who is working in BSNL, a Central Government Organisation.
According to the respondents, the said Amirthakani, Wife of Gunasekaran has put up a massive structure over the 1 cent of land allotted to her after encroaching the adjacent government poromboke lands and put up a iron grill fence surrounding the house. Further, the allottees have sold the lands in favour of third persons who have raised compound wall over the plots by encroaching the other adjacent government lands. As per the allotment order, the beneficiaries should put up construction within six months, however, several of the beneficiaries have put up such construction only after one year. After conducting an enquiry, notices were issued to the beneficiaries, but most of the beneficiaries have sold the lands in favour of third parties as a result of which even notices could not be served on them.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court that most of the beneficiaries have not even paid the amount payable for allotment of the plots.
6. In the light of the above averments raised in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the interference of this Court is not warranted. This Court is of the view that a benevolent measure undertaken by the Government has been misused and abused by the allottees of the plots. Further, as per the conditional order of allotment, the allotment money has not been paid by the petitioners and others or they have put up the construction within six months. On the other hand, they have sold the lands allotted to them to third parties for a huge prize and the purchaser in turn has put up giant building by encroaching the adjacent government lands which were not allotted to them.
In the counter, reference was also made to a iron scrap dealer who has put up massive building by encroaching nearly 10 cents of adjacent lands. It is needless to mention that the lands were allotted by the respondents in favour of the beneficiaries at Arapalayam in Madurai City where the value of the land is more than Rs.10,00,000/- per cent. It is further seen that the impugned proceedings came to be passed after a field inspection conducted by the Tahsildar, Madurai, the fourth respondent herein. In his report, in para Nos. 10 and 15, the fourth respondent has enumerated the various violations made by the allottees of the plots. In such circumstances, I only hold that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it does not call for any interference.
have got a right of appeal before the District Revenue Officer by way of a revision. For the reasons best known, the petitioners, without availing such revisional remedy, have come up with this writ petition. Therefore, I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable.
7. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar gsr/rsh To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.
+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.24674 +1CC to Mr.V.Thirumal, Advocate Sr.No.23920 GJM/ARK/PV/28.6.16-4p-7c WP (MD) No. 17317 of 2015 26.04.2016