Madras High Court
R.Chandiraiyan vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 20 July, 2023
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.20894 of 2023
R.Chandiraiyan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Tambaram,
Chengalpattu District.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
5.The Tahsildar,
Vandalur,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on the appeal petition pending in reference
no.4880444/2023 dated 30.05.2023 to allot/assign the land to the
petitioner, measuring 1.42.0 hectares, comprised in S.No.81A/13 situated
at Kezhakottaiyur Village, then Thirupporurur Taluk now Vandalur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District under Ex-Serviceman quota.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopinathan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for directing the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on the appeal petition pending in reference
no.4880444/2023 dated 30.05.2023 to allot / assign the land to the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
measuring 1.42.0 hectares, comprised in S.No.81A/13 situated at
Kezhakottaiyur Village, then Thiruporur Taluk now Vandalur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District under Ex-Serviceman quota.
2. The petitioner states that he is an Ex-Servicemen, who joined army
services in the year 1980 and served in 4 Corps Operating Single Regiment till
1989. Five acres of land in S.F.No.148/31C of Melakottaiyur Village was in
occupation of the father of the writ petitioner, who was an encroacher. The
petitioner submitted a representation to allot the said land in his favour. He
further states that he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and he had
filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.399 of 2009 on the file of the Chengalpattu
Munsif Court to protect his possession. Under the scheme, the petitioner is
eligible for allotment of 5 acres under the Ex-Servicemen category. Since the
petitioner was in occupation of the Government land to an extent of 5 acres, he
had made an application to allot the said land to him.
3. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18532 of 2011,
challenging the order of rejection dated 23.07.2011 passed by the Tahsildar,
Chengalpet and to direct the respondents to allow the land measuring 5 acres
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
in favour of the writ petitioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had
passed an order on 14.11.2011, dismissing the writ petition. While dismissing
the writ petition, this Court made an observation that the petitioner is at liberty
to seek an allotment of land in some other place. Taking benefit of the said
observation made in the order of the writ petition in W.P.No.18532 of 2011,
the petitioner has identified some other land and submitted a representation to
allot the said land in his favour. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed several
representations and finally the said representations were rejected by the
District Collector, Kanchipuram in the proceedings dated 22.07.2013. The
said rejection order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition in
W.P.No.23221 of 2013 and this Court passed final orders in the said order on
21.09.2021, setting aside the order passed by the District Collector and
remanded the matter back to the District Collector for fresh consideration. The
matter was remanded based on the submission made by the writ petitioner that
he is ready and willing to pay the market value of the land identified by him.
Since a submission was made that the petitioner will pay the market value of
the land, this court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
4. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition, the District
Collector, on considering the representations submitted by the writ petitioner,
had elaborately passed an order in the proceedings dated 11.05.2023, against
which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which is yet to be disposed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
petitioner is an Ex-Servicemen and 5 acres of land in his occupation was taken
away by the IIT Administration for development of educational activities. The
petitioner has identified an alternate land pursuant to the observation made by
this Court in the writ petition and the said alternate land identified was not
allotted to the writ petitioner and hence he had filed another writ petition and
the matter was remanded back to the District Collector for fresh consideration.
Instead of allotting the land, the District Collector rejected the same and thus,
the petitioner has preferred an appeal.
6. This court is of the considered opinion that directing the appellate
authority to dispose of the appeal at this length of time would do no service to
the cause of justice. The petitioner will be back again by filing another writ
petition. The petitioner has already filed several civil suits and writ petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
and attempted to get an allotment of Government land by giving an
undertaking that he is ready to pay the market value of the property.
Government cannot act as a realtor to sell the Government property in favour
of the private individuals. The Government largesse are to be made only in the
public interest and for the welfare of the public at large. Therefore, it is not as
if the Government is empowered to have a property deal with the private
persons for the purpose of alienating the Government property. The
Government largesse, if granted for the benefit of an individual, it is liable to
be set aside by the Courts. The principles in this regard are settled by the Apex
Courts in catena of judgments.
7. Let us now consider the elaborate order of the District Collector. The
representation submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration and the
District Collector has elaborately considered the properties possessed by the
writ petitioner and his family members. The petitioner is already owning
several properties and his family members also own properties. That apart, the
petitioner is running a manufacturing industry in the name and style of 'Sri
Thirumala Hollow Blocks' and manufacturing Hollow Blocks, Solid Blocks
and Paving Blocks. From the above business, he is earning huge amounts. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
brothers of the petitioner are joint-owners of the business. That apart, the
petitioner is also receiving pension form the Government of India, since he is
an Ex-servicemen.
8. Under these circumstances, the District Collector formed an opinion
that allotment of land by the Government is to be made only to poor homeless
people and the scheme cannot be implemented for the purpose of merely
allotting the Government land to the persons, who otherwise have properties
and run business. Thus, the District Collector held that the petitioner is an
ineligible person for allotment of Government land.
9. In respect of the properties identified by the writ petitioner, the
District Collector made a finding that the said land is situated in the outskirts
of Chennai city and the market value of the said property is about
Rs.19,98,34,928. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the allotment of
the Government land, either on receipt of market price or at free of cost.
10. The petitioner is an Ex-servicemen and he has served in the Indian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
army, who is also receiving a very decent pension from the Government of
India. His father encroached upon 5 acres of land and the petitioner also was
in possession of the encroached land for some time. The said encroached land
was taken away by the Government for the benefit of IIT, Chennai.
11. Mere observation of this Court to consider the case for alternate
allotment would not confer any right on the petitioner to seek such allotment
as an absolute right. Any such allotment is to be made subject to the eligibility
by the Government and therefore, the authorities competent are empowered to
assess the eligibility of a person. In the event of allotting such vast extent of
Government land to ineligible person, it will set a wrong precedent and the
similar request will be made by several such persons, which will result in an
anomalous situation and therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in
respect of the decision taken by the District Collector, which is otherwise in
consonance with the principles established.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not
established even a semblance of legal right for the purpose of considering the
relief. Merely directing the appellate authority to decide the issues again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
would prolong the matter and therefore, this Court is not inclined to do so.
The petitioner is not eligible for allotment of any Government land.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
20.07.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
Tambaram,
Chengalpattu District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Vandalur,
Chengalpattu District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.21527 of 2023
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
