Madras High Court
The District Collector vs S.S.Baskar on 22 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1125 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.A(MD)No.1125 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8589 of 2024
1.The District Collector,
O/o. the District Collector,
7A, National Highway,
PSP Nagar,
Korampallam,
Tuticorin.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o.the District Collector,
No.7A, National Highway,
PSP Nagar,
Korampallam,
Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Beach Road,
Tuticorin.
4.The Revenue Tahsildhar,
Tuticorin Taluk,
Tuticorin.
5.The Village Administrative officer,
Kumaragiri Pudukottai,
Tuticorin Taluk,
Tuticorin District. ... Appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1125 of 2024
vs.
1.S.S.Baskar
2.S.S.Janarthanan
3.S.S.Jeyakumar
4.S.S.Mohan
5.S.S.Sundar
6.Geetha @ Katti Thangam
7.Sujatha
8.The Block Development Officer,
Kumaragiri Village Panchayat,
Kumaragiri Village,
Tuticorin.
9.The President,
Kumaragiri Village Panchayat,
Kumaragiri Village,
Tuticorin. ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
made in W.P(MD)No.24909 of 2022, dated 21.02.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 to R7 : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For R8 and R9 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1125 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appeal is by the State. The respondents 1 to 7 herein challenged the
order of the first appellant, dated 04.08.2022, confirming the order passed by
the second appellant on 16.03.1981, cancelling the assignment granted in
favour of their mother Tmt.Kasikaniammal in respect of land in Survey No.
509/6, measuring an extent of 1.62 Acres, situate in Kumaragiri Pudukottai
Village, Tuticorin Taluk and District.
2. The essential contention of the respondents 1 to 7 was threefold.
(i) The assignment granted in the year 1969 cannot be cancelled after
expiry of period of three years.
(ii) There was no notice issued to the assignee or her legal
representatives before the cancellation.
(iii) The power for cancellation vests with the Land Commissioner and
therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Collector is invalid.
3. The Writ Court agreed with the contentions of the respondents 1 to 7
on all the three corners, resulting in allowing the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State would, however, contend that in the subsequent proceedings, it has
been agreed that the land was not cultivated and that the Writ Petition is hit by
delay and laches. That by itself may not offer a ground for us to interfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Contending contra, Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 1 to 7 would submit that once it is found that the power of
cancellation ceases, the question whether the land was cultivated or not pales
into insignificance. On the question of laches, the learned counsel would
submit that the order of cancellation, dated 16.03.1981, was not communicated
and also there were various proceedings taken by the appellants right from the
year 2012 and an order was passed by this Court in 2017, directing rectification
of the entries, which was not carried out. It was only then, the respondents 1 to
7 became aware of the order.
6. We have considered the rival submissions.
7. No doubt, the time limit of three years fixed was withdrawn by a
subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department,
dated 14.05.1973. But, this Court had repeatedly held that the said Government
Order would be operative only for assignments granted after 14.05.1973. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Single Judge has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Seriya
Pushpam, Rep. by her Power of Attorney, M.Jayakumar vs. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration [W.P.No.11836
of 2010], which very clearly lays down that G.O.Ms.No.2555, dated
14.05.1973, will only have a prospective operation. This position was
reiterated in N.Padmanathan and another vs. The District Revenue Officer
and others reported in 2005 Supreme (Mad) 1427.
8. In fact, there is a categorical finding by the Writ Court that no notice
was issued to the assignee or her legal heirs before the cancellation. Nothing
has been placed before us to dislodge the said conclusion.
9. In view of the above, we do not think that we can interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge. The assignment of the year 1969 was
cancelled only in the year 1981 i.e., after 12 years. By that time, the time
framed for cancellation had already expired. Hence, we see no merit in the writ
appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.M, J.) (S.M., J.)
22.10.2024
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o.the District Collector,
7A, National Highway,
PSP Nagar,
Korampallam,
Tuticorin.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o.the District Collector,
No.7A, National Highway,
PSP Nagar,
Korampallam,
Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Beach Road,
Tuticorin.
4.The Revenue Tahsildhar,
Tuticorin Taluk,
Tuticorin.
5.The Village Administrative officer,
Kumaragiri Pudukottai,
Tuticorin Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
6.The Block Development Officer,
Kumaragiri Village Panchayat,
Kumaragiri Village,
Tuticorin.
7.The President,
Kumaragiri Village Panchayat,
Kumaragiri Village,
Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
smn2
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
