Madras High Court
P.Pitchai vs The District Collector on 29 August, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.10638 of 2020
P.Pitchai ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The District Revenue Officer and
District Additional Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Taluk, Musiri,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Musiri Taluk, Musiri,
Tiruchirappalli District.
5.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents
(5th respondent is suo moto impleaded by
this Court, vide this order, dated 29.08.2023,
in W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records from the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in
Ni.Mu.AA6/17207/2018, dated 07.08.2020, to quash the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/22
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
consequently, to direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner's
Punja land in Survey No.300/1 to an extent of Acre 1 cents 60 situated at
Pulivalam Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, within the
period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
quash the impugned proceedings dated 07.08.2020 passed by the 2 nd
respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to issue patta to
the petitioner's Punja land in Survey No.300/1 to an extent of Acre 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
cents 60 situated at Pulivalam Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli
District, within the period stipulated by this Court.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is doing agricultural
activities in his own land. As early as 1970, the government had
assignment land to the petitioner in Survey No.300/1 to an extent of 1
acre and 60 cents under the landless poor scheme. When the respondents
disturbed his peaceful possession in the year 2015, he had filed O.S.No.
223 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, for
declaration and injunction and ex-parte decree was passed in his favour
on 01.07.2014. However, the respondents did not issue patta to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
petitioner inspite of several representations dated 24.06.2016, 04.09.201
and 16.05.2018 for granting patta and the petitioner was made to run
from pillar to post. Hence, he has filed W.P.(MD)No.13852 of 2018 with
a prayer to grant patta. This Court without considering the case on merits
has directed the respondents therein to consider and pass orders. Since
the respondents therein had not passed orders, instead of filing contempt
petition, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.16479
of 2019, and this Court, vide order, dated 19.08.2019, directed the first
respondent to give suitable instructions to the District Revenue Officer to
act upon the representation and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the
4th respondent filed a report on 10.02.2020 before the 2nd respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
the 2nd respondent issued summons to the petitioner to attend the enquiry
on 25.02.2020. The contention of the petitioner is that during the enquiry,
the 2nd respondent without affording proper opportunity has conducted
enquiry. Moreover, without considering the facts has simply rejected the
petitioner's application and declined to issue patta, vide order, dated
07.08.2020. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner cannot
be considered as landless poor, since without disclosing that his father is
in possession of lands, the petitioner has obtained the lands under the
landless poor scheme. As far as Survey No.300/2A to an extent of 1.05.0
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
hectares stands in the name of petitioner along with Andi Gounder in
Patta No.131. Another land in S.No.300/2B an extent of 0.67.5 Ares
stands in the name of petitioner in Patta No.1016. The lands in S.No.
300/2C to an extent of 0.63.0 Ares, S.No.300/2 to an extent of 0.30.0
Ares, S.No.345/1B4 to an extent of 0.02.0 Ares stands in the name of the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was in possession of many lands
including his father's land, hence, hence he cannot be considered as
landless poor. The petitioner had concealed these facts and hence he is
not entitled to assignment patta. Moreover, the petitioner claims that the
land in S.No.300/1 was assigned to the petitioner and as per assignment
condition the petitioner ought to have put the land for cultivation within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
a period of three years from the date of assignment, but the petitioner has
not put the land for cultivation and thereby violated the condition.
Thereafter, the respondents considered the same and cancelled the
assignment patta. The respondents further contended that the petitioner
claims that he is in possession of the assigned land in S.No.300/1 land if
that is so, the petitioner would have approached the respondents under
UDR scheme and would have entered the petitioner's name. The
petitioner did not do so which would prove that the petitioner was not in
possession of the said land, since before UDR itself, the said land has
been transferred to State Government for which the respondents are
relying on the extract of the A register, wherein the S.No.300/1 has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
classified as “Tharisu”. Hence for all these reasons the respondents
prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has
received the said land under the landless poor scheme. The definition of
landless poor as per the Revenue Standing Orders is as under:
“(3) Who are eligible for assignment :-(1) Only landless
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
and poor persons who are likely to engage themselves in direct
cultivation shall be eligible for assignment of land free of land
value subject to the conditions of assignment, imposed in the 'D'
Form patta. Cooperative societies consisting entirely of landless
and poor persons who are likely to engage themselves in direct
cultivation, shall also be eligible for cost free assignment of both
valuable and non-valuable lands provided lands are available in
compact blocks.”
In the present case, the petitioner was assigned land as early as 1970. At
that time, the petitioner was 20 years old. Subsequently, in the year
1984, he was appointed as Noon Meal Organizer, continued his service
and on attaining superannuation in the year 2010 had retired from
service. Since the petitioner has not engaged in direct cultivation, hence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
the petitioner is not coming under the definition of “landless poor”.
6. The next contention of the respondents is that the petitioner's
father is owning certain lands and hence the petitioner cannot be
considered as landless poor. But the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that if the petitioner's father is in possession of the
land, the same cannot be considered as a ground to decline assignment
under landless poor scheme. As stated supra the definition only states
that the person should engage in direct cultivation. Based this definition
the fact that the petitioner’s father is in possession of lands cannot be a
ground to decline assignment in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
is eligible for assignment patta, since he can do direct cultivation, but the
petitioner without doing cultivation was serving as Noon Meal
Organizer. Hence the contention of the respondents, since the petitioner’s
father is in possession of land the petitioner cannot be considered under
landless poor, cannot be sustained as per definition. But logically the
petitioner cannot be considered as landless poor when his father has land
because after the demise of his father, the petitioner would inherit the
land, hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner
cannot be considered as landless poor. Moreover, the petitioner is having
lands in his own name also. But the petitioner submitted that the lands
was purchased by him after entering into service. The petitioner has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
submitted any documents to prove that the said lands were purchased by
him after entering into service or before his service.
7. But rightly or wrongly, the petitioner was conferred with
assignment patta. In such circumstances, if the respondents intended to
cancel the same, it should be as per law. In the present case, the
respondents have not issue proper notices and has not granted proper
opportunity before cancelling the patta. The Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court has dealt with how and when an assignment patta can be
cancelled in W.A.(MD)Nos.1201 of 2019 and batch, vide judgment,
dated 08.07.2022, and has stated that without issuing proper notice, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
assignment patta cannot be cancelled and the relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted hereunder:
“18. In this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer appears
to have entertained the proceedings for cancellation of
Assignment. However, the Show Cause Notices were not issued
by the Registered Post. This Court is unable to accept the case of
the RDO regarding the service of Show Cause Notice to all the
133 persons by Affixture as per the Order of Cancellation of
Assignment, dated 12.8.1987. As pointed out earlier in the case
of Vendor of the Writ Petitioner, it is seen that the Village
Administration Officer has endorsed that the Assignee by name
Villayutham refused to receive the Notice and hence, Notice was
served by Affixture on the wall. None of the 133 Assignees
against whom Order of Cancellation of Assignment was made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
appeared or submitted objections. It is unbelievable. This Court
is of the view that there was no Notice to any of the Assignee
before cancellation of Assignment. This was done consciously to
pass Order behind the back of Assignees. It is not even stated on
whose wall Notice was affixed. Similarly, the Order of
Cancellation was also communicated by affixture, as per the
endorsement made by the Village Administrative Officer. It is
seen that in respect of the persons whose address was not known,
the Village Administrative Officer endorsed that the order was
served by Affixture in a stick, which was posted in the respective
land. In respect of others, the Village Administrative Officer
reported that the Order was served by Affixture by pasting the
same on the wall or doors of the Assignees. Even in the report,
the address of the house of the Assignee, in which the Order was
affixed is not mentioned. It is admitted that no Notice was sent by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
Registered Post. This Court is unable to accept or believe that
service of Notice and Final Order was effected by Affixture. The
arguments of learned Advocate General referring to Tamil Nadu
Revenue Summons Act, 1869 is not acceptable as the said Act has
no application. Further, when no record is provided to show
service of Notice by Registered Post, Notice by Affixture is
illegal. In this case, this Court is unable to believe such service in
this case, where Assignments in 133 cases were cancelled at one
strectch without the participation of any one of the Assignee.
Therefore, this Court hold that there was no Notice to the
Assignee before cancellation and the Order of Cancellation is not
served on the Assignee. It is not established that the Assignee had
knowledge about the cancellation of Assignment by any means.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
Since the respondents have not invoked proper provision, has not served
notice through registered post and has not followed the proper procedure
that has been stated in the manual, the cancellation of patta is against the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Division of this Court as well as the
Revenue Standing Orders. Moreover, the appropriate authority for
cancelling the assignment patta is the Commissioner of Land
Administration. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has passed the
order, hence the order is passed without jurisdiction.
8. The Commissioner of Land Administration is not arrayed as
party. Therefore, the Commissioner of Land Administration is suo moto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
impleaded as 5th respondent by this Court. This case is remitted back to
the impleaded 5th respondent and the petitioner is directed to submit a
representation before the 5th respondent within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the 5th
respondent shall consider the entire case and pass appropriate orders
within a period of three months.
9. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
Index : Yes / No 29.08.2023
Internet : Yes
NCC : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The District Revenue Officer and
District Additional Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Taluk, Musiri,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Musiri Taluk, Musiri,
Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
5.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2020
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
