Madras High Court
P.Ramalakshmi vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 17 October, 2023
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.12495 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9790 & 10752 of 2021
P.Ramalakshmi ...Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
Now Bifurcated Into
The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kadayanallur Taluk,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union,
Vasudevanallur, Tenkasi District.
6.S.Krishnaveni . ...Respondents
(R6 is impleaded vide Court order dated 23.08.2023 in WMP(MD)NO.10749/2021.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the
2nd and 1st respondents in connection with the impugned order of cancellation of
assignment issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.G1/4056/2017 dated 16.09.2019 and the impugned order of rejection
passed on my appeal by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Proc. No.
F1/26805/2019 dated 22.06.2021 and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently direct the respondents to restore the House site assignment issued
by the 4th respondent in my name in the light of Clause 4 (vii) if G.O. (Nilai)
No. 318, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 30.08.2019
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia (R1 to R5)
Special Government Pleader
Mr.Mohammad Imran (R6)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
second respondent dated 16.09.2019, which was confirmed in appeal by the first
respondent through proceedings dated 22.06.2021 and for a consequential
direction to the official respondents to restore the assignment in favour of the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to a poor agricultural
family suffering from almost 100% blindness. The fourth respondent through
proceedings dated 01.07.2017 granted assignment of the subject property in
S.No.463/13 to an extent of 0092 sq.mts in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner thereafter had constructed a house in the property. There was some
dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent and the sixth respondent
made a complaint before the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner
has encroached upon her property, which is adjacent to the property that was
assigned in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 0068 sq.mts. The
proceedings were initiated by the third respondent and some encroachments
were identified and removed. According to the petitioner, encroachments were
allegedly made in the pathway that was used by the sixth respondent and these
encroachments were also removed.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent made a
representation before the second respondent seeking for cancellation of the
assignment made in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent conducted
an enquiry and through the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2019, the
assignment made in favour of the petitioner by the fourth respondent was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has violated the terms of assignment
and that the petitioner is not a poor woman as claimed by her and a
superstructure worth of Rs.30,00,000/- has been constructed and she has been
effectively taken care by her nephew and niece. That apart, the petitioner is also
paid old woman pension.
4. The petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent
filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, through
proceedings dated 22.06.2021 confirmed the order passed by the second
respondent and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed
before this Court.
5. Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the official
respondents and Mr.Mohammad Imran, learned counsel for the sixth
respondent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
7. The house site situated at S.No.463/13 measuring an extent of 0092
sq.mts was assigned in favour of the petitioner through proceedings of the
fourth respondent dated 01.07.2017 under Revenue Standing Order 21 by
imposing necessary terms and conditions. Initially, a complaint was given by
the sixth respondent on the ground that the petitioner had constructed a building
and had encroached upon the pathway leading to the house of the sixth
respondent. On this complaint, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and
the encroachment to an extent of 0068 sq.mts was identified. This
encroachment was directed to be removed.
8. The sixth respondent had filed an appeal before the second respondent
and had taken the ground that the petitioner had violated the terms of
assignment by constructing the building beyond the extent of land that was
assigned to her and that the petitioner has put up construction worth
Rs.30,00,000/- and therefore, she is not a poor woman and that the property is
being enjoyed by the petitioner's brother's son, who is the actual beneficiary
under the shadow of the petitioner.
9. On carefully going through the impugned order passed by the second
respondent and the impugned order, which was subsequently confirmed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
first respondent in appeal, it is seen that the construction of the house had taken
place by encroaching upon 0068 sq.mtrs. The first and second respondents had
taken into consideration the aim of granting assignment to poor people for
providing them permanent residence as welfare measure and in the instant case,
it was found that the petitioner had claimed that she was an aged person without
any income, except the old age pension. However, a house was constructed
with an extent of 118 sq.mts., which was found worth Rs.30,00,000/-. That
apart, there was also an encroachment to an extent of 0068 sq.mts. In view of
the same, the first and second respondents found that the assignment that was
granted in favour of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and accordingly, the
assignment was cancelled. The same has been made a subject matter of
challenge in the present writ petition.
10. This Court has been called upon to issue a writ of certiorari. The
Court, while exercising this jurisdiction, is not sitting in an appellate
jurisdiction and the Court should not substitute its view to the view taken by the
authorities. To issue such a writ, the Court must find that there is an error of
law on the face of the record. This Court will also issue a writ of certiorari,
where it is found that there is an error of jurisdiction that is to say, there is
absence, excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction or while exercising the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
jurisdiction, an illegality has been committed. Only a patent error can be
corrected and not a wrong decision taken by the authorities. The entire law on
the issue was discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment in
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another vs. Bikartan
Das and Others reported in 2023 5 MLJ 289 (SC).
11. In the instant case, the petitioner was assigned the land at S.No.
463/13 to an extent of 0092 sq.mtrs on the ground that the petitioner is an aged
person without income except the receipt of old age pension. While granting
this assignment, the petitioner was supposed to construct the house within the
extent that was assigned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner violated this
condition and had encroached upon excess land to an extent of 0068 sq.mtrs.
That apart, the petitioner had put up a construction worth about Rs.30,00,000/-.
If the petitioner claims that the superstructure was put up with the help of
nephew, that does not take away the fact that there was a wherewithal for the
petitioner to put up a superstructure worth of Rs.30,00,000/-.
12. The construction put up beyond the extent that was assigned in
favour of the petitioner was in violation of the terms and conditions of the
assignment. That apart, the petitioner even though is blind and old, does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
seem to be in penury and she is sufficiently supported by her relatives. That is
the reason why someone had invested Rs.30,00,000/- to put up a construction
with the aim to ultimately become the beneficiary under the assignment.
13. On carefully going through the reasoning given by the first and
second respondents, this Court does not find that the same suffers from any
error of law on the face of the record. The finding rendered by the first and
second respondents is based on the materials available on record. This Court
does not find that there is a patent error on the face of the order passed by the
first and second respondents warranting the interference of this Court.
14. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the order passed by the first and second respondents.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
17.10.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
TO:-
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
Now Bifurcated Into
The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kadayanallur Taluk,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union,
Vasudevanallur, Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.12495 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sm
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.12495 of 2021
Dated:
17.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
