Madras High Court
Mr.P.Dhinakaran … vs The District Collector on 19 February, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.2363 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.2363 of 2021
and WMP Nos.2666 & 2667 of 2021
Mr.P.Dhinakaran …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District.
2.The District Revenue Officer
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating the
impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 27.10.2020 in Na.Ka.AA2.1547/2019 in
confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 14.12.2017 in Mu.Mu.A5/3024/2015
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reassing the land to
the petitioner as legal heir situated at K.Pantharapalli Village, Natrampalli Taluk,
Thirupattur District to an extent of 6 acres and 66 cents of land comprised in
S.Nos.448/1, S.No.448/2 and S.No.448/3b by virtue of the Judgment Delivered in Civil
Appeal No.6741, 6742 of 20212 dated 20.09.2012 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
within the time framed fixed by this Court.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2363 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2 nd
respondent dated 27.10.2020, confirming the order passed by the 3 rd respondent
dated 14.12.2017 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reassign the
subject land to the petitioner.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the subject property measuring an extent of
6.66 acres was conditionally assigned in favour of one Chengam, who is the great
grandfather of the petitioner. Thereafter, one Chinnapaiyan purchased the property
and he was cultivating the land. On his demise, the father of the petitioner was
cultivating the land till his lifetime. In the revenue records, the name of the
petitioner's father and father's brother Vinothan was entered.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the RDO through proceedings dated
14.12.2017 resumed the lands on the ground of violation of the conditions of
assignment and this order was also confirmed by the 2nd respondent through
proceedings dated 27.02.2020. It is under these circumstances, the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition has been filed filed before this Court.
4.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it
has been stated that the original assignee had sold the property in favour of one
Chinnapaiyan in the year 1997. The said Chinnapaiyan had conveyed the property in
favour of Mrs.Mahapurushiammal through a sale deed dated 05.06.1984. The said
Mrs.Mahapurushiammal in turn sold a portion of the land in favour of one Baranibabu
through a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1994.
5.The petitioner who is the son of Periyasamy filed a writ petition seeking for a
writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider grant of patta in favour of the
petitioner. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, an enquiry was conducted
by the 3rd respondent and through proceedings dated 14.12.2017, it was found that
the assignment land which is a DC land has been sold in violation of the conditions
and accordingly directed the land to the acquired for the use of the Government.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and
the same was also rejected by an order dated 27.10.2020. The 2 nd respondent has
taken a clear stand for the petitioner's predecessor in title had sold the property in
violation of the conditions of assignment and therefore the assignment itself was
cancelled and lands were directed to be resumed by the Government. While so, the
petitioner has come into the picture and he is seeking for the reassignment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land as a matter of right. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has sought for the
dismissal of this writ petition.
6.The petitioner has filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has stated
that the sale deed itself is in violation of the conditions of assignment and the sale has
been made to persons who did not belong to the depressed classes. As a result, the
land has to go back to the original owners of the property. Thus, the petitioner who is
the descendent of the original assignee will be entitled for reassignment of lands.
Accordingly, the petitioner has reiterated the claim seeking for reassignment of land.
7.Heard Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
8.It is not in dispute that the lands were assigned in favour of the great
grandfather of the petitioner in the year 1928. Thereafter, the land was in possession
and enjoyment of Chengam, who was the son of the original assignee. He had sold
and conveyed the lands in favour of one Chinnapaiyan in the year 1997. This
Chinnapaiyan also belonged to the scheduled caste community. The problem started
when the said Chinnapaiyan sold the property in favour of Mrs.Mahapurushiammal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who do not belonged to depressed class. Once again the said Mrs.Mahapurushiammal
sold a portion of the property to one Baranibabu, who also did not belong to
depressed class.
9.After all the above transactions had taken place, the petitioner who is
admittedly a descendant has chosen to seek for reassignment of the lands
disregarding the earlier sale that was made by his predecessor in title. The petitioner
wants this Court to completely disregard the sale since it is in violation of the
assignment condition and to direct the respondents to reassign the lands in favour of
the petitioner.
10.There are absolutely no bonafides on the claim made by the petitioner. The
petitioner is relying upon some judgements which holds that such a sale deed will be
treated as non-est and void and therefore the property will automatically resume back
to the original owner.
11.The violation of the conditions of the assignment will lead to the cancellation
of the assignment, which has actually happened in the present case. Thereafter, the
lands will go back to the Government and it is for the Government to once again
utilise those lands and assign it to deserving persons. The petitioner cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seeking for those lands as a matter of right since the petitioner is none other than the
descendant of the original owner who has dealt with the property and such sale of
property resulted in violation of the assignment conditions. The resumption of the
land by Government does not give a cause of action for the petitioner to seek for
reassignment of the lands. At the best, the petitioner can only make the request and
it is for the Government to consider the same.
12.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of he 3 rd
respondent dated 14.12.2017 as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent
dated 27.10.2020 does not suffer from any illegality and the same is hereby sustained
and this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
NCS : Yes/No
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District.
2.The District Revenue Officer
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thirupathur
Thirupathur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
