Madras High Court
S.Mahalakshmi vs The Assistant Commissioner on 26 July, 2022
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 26.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.12759 of 2012
and
MP(MD).Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012
S.Mahalakshmi ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Assistant Commissioner
Land Reforms
Murugankuruchi
Thiruvanathapuram Road
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
2.P.Maharajan
3.P.Murugan
4.M.Murugan
5.Valliappa
6.Devasahayam
7.The Inspector of Police
Moondradaipuu Police Station
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District
8.M.D.K.Shanmuganathan ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings
“C4/MR4/497A/Nanguneir dated 11.06.2007 and quash the same and further
direct the first respondent to assign the land in S.No.336/3 to an extent of
3.35 acres out of 12.05 acres situated at Vagaikulam Village, Poolam Part II,
Nanguneir Taluk, Tirunelveli District to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan
For R1 & R7 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.R.Jeyarhuthran
For R3 to R6 : No appearance
For R8 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by
the first respondent herein on 11.06.2007 and grant of assignment of land in
favour of the writ petitioner.
2.According to the writ petitioner, the land in dispute originally belong
to Singikulam Annadhana Chathiram. The petitioner's mother was cultivating
the said land. The same was also registered before the Registrar of Tenancy
Rights for Agricultural Land on 21.05.1993. After the death of his mother, the
petitioner name was referred as a tenant on 01.10.2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the
respondents 2 to 6 have attempted to disturb the petitioner's possession in the
first weeks of November 2011 and he found that the computerised patta has
been issued in the name of the said respondents. On verification, the
petitioner came to know that the lands have been acquired without notice and
without proper advertisement and the first respondent has assigned the said
lands in favour of the respondents 2 to 6. The petitioner has given a
representation on 03.12.2011 to cancel the order of assignment in favour of
the respondents 2 to 6. Since the petitioner is a cultivating tenant and he is in
possession of the same, the first respondent without following the due
procedure contemplated under Land Reforms Act ought not to have granted
assignment in favour of the respondents 2 to 6. The order under challenge in
the writ petition is the order passed under disposal of DSL Rules of Tamil
Nadu Lands Reforms Act 1961 under which the order of assignment has been
issued in favour of the respondents 2 to 6.
4.The assignees namely the respondents 2 to 6 has filed a counter
contending that the lands in dispute along with other lands were declared as
surplus under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act 1961. After payment of the land
value, the same was assigned in favour of the private respondents. After
getting an order of assignment, the private respondents contended that they
have cultivating the said lands and individual patta has also been granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
5.The learned counsel for the private respondents contended that the
second respondent had filed O.S.No.112 of 2012 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Nanguneri as against the writ petitioner and others for
the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was
decreed on 27.07.2013. No appeal was filed by the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner had filed O.S.No.50 of 2012 as against the second respondent on
the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri for the relief of
permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed after trial on 22.04.2014.
This judgment and decree was also not challenged by the writ petitioner.
Hence, he contended that the order of assignment granted in favour of the
private respondents has become final and the civil suit have ended as against
the writ petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7.The petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant of a property which
was declared surplus under Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. According to the writ
petitioner, a cultivating tenant has got preferential right of assignment order
in his favour. Without proper publication, an order of assignment has been
issued in favour of the private respondents 2 to 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
8.A perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petitioner and the
typed set filed on the side of the second respondent herein reveals that after
following due process of law, lands have been declared as surplus and it has
been assigned on payment in favour of the respondents 2 to 6 herein on
11.06.2007. However, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2012
challenging the said order of assignment. The second respondent one of the
beneficiaries of the assignment has filed a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction as against the writ petitioner and he has succeeded. The
civil suit filed by the writ petitioner as against the second respondent has
been dismissed.
9.In view of the decision in both the said civil suits, it is clear that the
writ petitioner is not in possession of the disputed property for which he
seeks assignment order. A perusal of the records filed on the side of the
official respondents will show that they have followed the rules under Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules before granting an
order of assignment. The petitioner has not chosen to file any application
seeking assignment at that point of time. Hence, the petitioner cannot now
contend that his request for Patta was not favourably considered by the
official respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
10. Only when the petitioner files an application under Rule 7 of DSL
Rule 1965 before the concerned authority seeking assignment of land, the
question of granting assignment will arise. The petitioner has also not
objected to the notice published in Form-D or participated in the enquiry
objecting to the granting of assignment in favour of the third party. That
apart, as against the order impugned in the writ petition, an appeal lies to the
appellate authority under Rule 10. But in the present case, the petitioner has
chosen to file a writ petition to quash the order of assignment even without
filing any application seeking assignment in his favour.
11.In view of the above said facts, I do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26 .07.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner
Land Reforms
Murugankuruchi
Thiruvanathapuram Road
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
2.The Inspector of Police
Moondradaipuu Police Station
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.12759 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).No.12759 of 2012
and
MP(MD).Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012
26.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
