Madras High Court
G.D.Chrystal Jeyamathy vs The Secretary on 8 December, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.2533 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2533 of 2022
G.D.Chrystal Jeyamathy .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2533 of 2022
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri Revenue Division,
Ponneri.
6.The Tahsildar,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Gummidipoondi. .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2021 passed in
W.P.No.30633 of 2012.
For the Appellant : Mr. E. Om Prakash
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ramalingam and
Associates
For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for
M/s.Ramalingam and Associates, learned counsel for the appellant;
and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition, bearing
W.P.No.30633 of 2012, seeking directions against the respondents
to grant patta to the appellant for the property comprised in Survey
Nos.579/1, 2 and 3 of Nemalur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk,
admeasuring 3.16 acres.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal.
4. Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
strenuously contends that the father of the appellant was a freedom
fighter. Considering the benevolent scheme, the father of the
appellant was placed in possession of 3.16 acres of the subject writ
land. Even the process for assigning the said land was initiated.
Along with the appellant's father, two other freedom fighters had
also sought for possession and allotment of agricultural land for
their livelihood. The other two freedom fighters were allotted the
land, however, the appellant's father was not allotted the land and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the process was continuing. The father of the appellant died on
4.12.1993. The appellant is the only daughter and the legal heir of
her deceased father. The mother of the appellant has also passed
away.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellant, being
the legal heir, came into possession of the subject writ land and
thereafter continued the proceedings for allotment/assignment of
the land. Correspondence was also made by the District Collector.
Even in the year 2006, the Tahsildar, after field inspection,
recommended to allot/assign the land in the name of the appellant
at Rs.269/- per cent, totalling Rs.85,004/-. The appellant is ready
to abide by the same and pay the said amount. However, the
assignment of the land has not been made in favour of the
appellant. The learned Single Judge, only on the ground that the
scheme does not contemplate allotment to a legal heir, has
dismissed the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. According to learned Senior Counsel, the appellant had
earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, bearing
W.P.No.28848 of 2011, seeking directions against the respondents
therein to issue patta in favour of the appellant. This Court,
considering the positive stand taken by the State authority in the
counter that the request of the appellant dated 24.6.2010 and
14.1.2011 would be considered and appropriate orders would be
passed, disposed of the writ petition directing the authority to take
a decision within three months. It is also further directed that while
considering the representation of the appellant, the respondents
should consider that the land was initially allotted/was in possession
of the father of the appellant, who was freedom fighter and had
requested for allotment of land as freedom fighter. According to
learned Senior Counsel, the order dated 30.3.2012 passed in
W.P.No.28848 of 2011 has not been complied with and, on the
contrary, the respondents have taken a decision not compatible with
the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. According to learned Senior Counsel, for more than 30
years, the appellant is in possession of the property. The said
aspect need to be considered. The appellant cannot be said to be
an encroacher. The appellant cannot be unceremoniously driven out
of the property.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at least on the ground
of parity the case of the appellant can be considered. The other
two freedom fighters have been allotted land in the year 1998 itself
and at that time the father of the appellant was alive. There was no
reason not to allot/assign the land in favour of the father of the
appellant, inter alia, the appellant.
9. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submits that, had the father of the
appellant been alive, then the case of the father of the appellant as
a freedom fighter could have been considered. There is no
provision for allotment of land to the legal heir of the freedom
fighter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. We have considered the submissions.
11. The allotment of land to the freedom fighter is a
benevolent/beneficial policy decision. The same is to provide means
of livelihood to the freedom fighter and further to recognise the
contribution of the freedom fighter. The father of the appellant,
according to the respondents, has encroached upon the land and he
was not assigned the land. Even if the father of the appellant had
encroached upon the land, still his case could have been considered
for allotment/assignment had he been alive. The assignment was
never made in favour of the father of the appellant. In the light of
that, the appellant, as legal heir, cannot claim any right, title or
interest over the said property. No legal right is created in favour of
the appellant in the absence of assignment of land in favour of the
father of the appellant. The right of the appellant is not
independent, however, would only claim through her father. As the
father of the appellant was never assigned the land, the appellant
could not claim any right over the property. The legal heir could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have enforced the performance on the part of the respondents had
the right been crystallized in favour of her father. As discussed
supra, the right in favour of the father of the appellant was not
crystallized. As such, the appellant also could not have claimed any
right as legal heir of the father.
12. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant may approach the government with
regard to the allotment of land. It is between the appellant and the
government to take a decision in that regard.
13. In the light of the above, the writ appeal stands disposed
of. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
08.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri Revenue Division,
Ponneri.
6.The Tahsildar,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Gummidipoondi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
