The President vs R.Krishnasamy
2023 Latest Caselaw 12765 Mad

                                                     S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                            DATED : 20.09.2023

                                  CORAM

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                          S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006
                                    and
                              M.P.No.1 of 2006

1.The President,
  Mangudi Panchayat,
  Mangudi Village,
  Poovatha Kudi Post,
  Aranthangi Taluk,
  Pudukkottai District.

2.M.Ananthan
3.Duraisamy
4.Sundararajan
5.Karuppiah                                          ... Appellants

                                    Vs

1.R.Krishnasamy
2.Veera Perumal
3.Ganesan
4.Gnanasekaran
5.Rathinam
6.Subbiah                                            ...Respondents

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 made in A.S.No.76 of

Page 1 of 8
                                                        S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai reversing the
judgment and decree dated 31.03.2003 made in O.S.No.262 of 1998 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.


              For Appellants    :       Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi
                                        Senior Counsel
                                        for Mr.L.Palanimuthu

              For R1            :       Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan

              For R2 to R6      :       Mrs.V.Sundari


                               JUDGMENT

The second appeal has been instituted against the judgment and

decree passed in A.S.No.76 of 2003 dated 30.01.2004 by the learned

Principal District Judge, Pudukottai.

2.The suit in O.S.No.262 of 1998 was instituted by one

Mr.R.Krishnasamy against the appellant Mangudi Village Panchayat and

nine other persons for declaration and for permanent injunction. The suit

was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi on 31.03.2003.

The plaintiffs instituted an appeal suit in A.S.No.76 of 2003 and the appeal

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

suit was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs and thus, the defendants 1, 2, 4,

5 and 7 were constrained to file the present second appeal before this Court.

3.It is not in dispute that with reference to the finding made by both

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the suit land was assigned

for the benefit of depressed class people for cultivation. The original

assignees had violated the assignment conditions and therefore, the District

Revenue Officer cancelled the assignment made in favour of the assignees.

The revision was filed before the Commissioner of Land Administration,

who in turn set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer.

4.The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

mainly contended that the vital issues considered by the District Revenue

Officer for cancelling the assignment had not been considered either by the

Commissioner or by the First Appellate Court in the appeal suit. The appeal

suit was decreed mainly on the basis of the order passed by the

Commissioner of Land Administration in proceedings dated 21.05.2003.

Since the said order has been relied upon and in the order, there is no

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

finding regarding the violation of assignment conditions, the learned senior

counsel contended that the second appeal is to be considered.

5.The questions of law framed at the time of admission of the second

appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the learned Principal District Judge is correct in reversing the well considered findings of the trial Court without any reason?

2. Whether the learned Principal District Judge is correct in not considering the issue No.2 with regard to the identity of the vendors of the plaintiff and the persons in whose favour the assignments were granted?

6.As far as the second question of law framed by this Court is

concerned, the identity of the vendors of the plaintiffs is of paramount

importance since the vendors of the plaintiffs were the original assignees of

the Government land. The District Revenue Officer by conducting an

enquiry made a finding that the assignees of the Government land had

violated the conditions stipulated in the assignment order and consequently

cancelled the assignment granted in their favour.

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

7.Government assigned lands cannot be transferred in favour of

ineligible persons or to the persons of other communities. In the present

case, admittedly the assigned lands were transferred in faovur of the

ineligible persons and more so, the assignees are not empowered to transfer

such assigned lands which was given for the livelihood of the depressed

class community people. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has

committed an error in passing a decree merely based on the findings made

by the Commissioner of Land Administration in his order dated 21.05.2003.

The Commissioner of Land Administration has failed to consider the vital

and relevant grounds and the conditions of assignment imposed by the

Government with reference to the Revenue Standing Orders.

8.The Government lands are assigned based on the Revenue Standing

Orders and the conditions imposed in the order are binding on the assignees.

Any violation of conditions would disentitle them to continue the

assignment and in such circumstances, the Government is empowered to

cancel the assignment, resume the land and to re-assign the same for eligible

beneficiaries or utilize the land for public purposes. This being the guiding

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

principles contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders, the District

Revenue Officer has rightly cancelled the assignment on the ground that the

original assignees had violated the conditions imposed in the assignment

order. The said factum had not been considered either by the Commissioner

of Land Administration or by the First Appellate Court in the judgment and

decree passed in A.S.No.76 of 2003.

9.The first appellant herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30206

of 2003 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land

Administration in proceedings dated 21.05.2003. This Court considered the

writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Land

Administration dated 21.05.2003 and remanded the matter back for fresh

consideration. In view of the fact that the writ petition filed by Mangudi

Village Panchayat in W.P.No.30206 of 2003 has been allowed by this

Court, the second appeal is to be allowed consequently since the appeal suit

was decided based on the order passed by the Commissioner of Land

Administration in proceedings dated 21.05.2003.

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

10.In view of the facts and circumstances, the questions of law raised

in the present second appeal are answered in favour of the appellants and

consequently, the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 passed in

A.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai

reversing the judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.262 of 1998 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi is set aside.

11.Accordingly, the second appeal stands allowed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.09.2023 cse Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

S.A.(MD).No.1159 of 2006

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

cse

To

1.The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai.

2.The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

S.A(MD).No.1159 of 2006

20.09.2023