Madras High Court
K.Ramakrishnan vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 28 February, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.No.580 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.580 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.4687 of 2025
K.Ramakrishnan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
& Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.No.16464 of 2017.
For Appellant : M/s.M.Kempraj
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
W.A.No.580 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is the common order dated 30.09.2022 in
W.P.No.16464 of 2017.
2. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant before this Court.
3. Land was assigned under the Revenue Standing Orders for
cultivation by the Revenue Authorities as per the terms stipulated in the
Assignment Order and in the Revenue Standing Order. The Authorities based
on the information conducted inspection and found that the Government
assigned land had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was assigned
in favour of the appellant. It was assigned for agricultural activities. The
Authorities found that there is no agricultural activities carried on by the
appellant and few other assignees in that locality. The market value of the
lands in that locality is sky rocketing, on account of urbanisation and various
other activities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
4. When the assignees have not utilised the land for agricultural
purposes as per the terms and conditions of the assignment, action was
initiated by the Revenue Authorities. Regarding the field inspections
conducted by the Revenue Authorities, the Collector in the cancellation order
has made the following findings:
"On 24.11.99, when the Thasildar, Tirunelveli, carried out
the field inspection of the lands mentioned above, as per the
conditions of the assignment, the beneficiaries did not carry out the
cultivation, and the lands were wastelands. Since the condition that
cultivation should be carried out within three years from the date of
assignment has been violated, a notice dated 26.22.99 was issued by
the Taluk Office as to why the assignment should not be cancelled.
The notice issued by the Tahsildar was served directly to
Mr.Ramakrishnan, Mrs.Muppidathi and Subramanian, and since the
assignee Mrs.Kombu Ammal, was dead, the notice was served on
her son Mr.Krishnan Thevar on 31.12.99. The four persons, who
received the notice, have submitted their reply to the Thasildar on
10.1.2000. They stated in their reply that they could bring the land
under cultivation only if there were any rains, and cultivation was
carried out whenever there were rains, and they cultivated avari
crops. The avari crop cultivated in the fazli 1407 was recorded in
the adangal, and for the fazli years 1406, 1047 and 1408, the avari
crop was cultivated, and the leaves were harvested, and the
adangals were enclosed. However, the Thasildar, in his letter dated
19.01.2000, had stated that at the time of conducting the field
auditing of the land assigned, no one had carried out the cultivation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
and there was no actions or any attempt made to carry out
cultivation and the lands were kept as wasteland and therefore
recommended the Revenue Divisional Officer that the assignment
might be cancelled. Further in the notice dated 19.10.2001, the
Thasildar had stated that when all the four beneficiaries received
the assignments, their earnings were more than the maximum
earnings eligible to receive the land assignment free of cost, and
therefore they were not eligible to receive the land assignment free
of cost and the assignees Mrs.Kombu Ammal, Mrs.Muppidathi
Ammal and Mr.Ramakrishnan were the mother, brother's wife and
brother's son respectively of the Village Assistant Mr.Arumugam
and under such circumstances recommended the Revenue Divisional
Officer to cancel the assignment."
5. The District Collector, Tirunelveli canceled the assignment on
the basis of the eligibility criteria and regarding the non-usage of the assigned
land for the purpose for which it was assigned as per the assignment
conditions. Against the cancellation of assignment, the appellant along with
other assignees preferred a revision before the Commissioner of land
administration. The Commissioner of Land Administration elaborately
considered the issues and passed impugned final orders in proceedings dated
15.04.2016 and the relevant paragraphs reads as under:
"(b) RSO 15(2)(iii) lays down the definition of "Poor
person" for eligibility for free assignment of land as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
"The "poor person" is one whose family income does not
exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum"
It is seen from the report of the District Inspection Cell
Officer that the beneficiary, Thiru.Ramakrishnan, was earning a
monthly income of Rs.1,300/- (Annual Income is Rs.15,600/-) at the
time of assignment. The monthly income of the other beneficiary,
Thiru.Subramanian is Rs.3,180/- (Annual Income is Rs.38,160/-) In
respect of Tmt.Muppidathi her husband earned a annual income of
Rs.18,000/- by way of cultivation of 1.19 acres of land belonging to
the Duvadasi Trust under kudivaram rights. Thiru Isakki Devar,
H/o. Tmt.Kombu Ammal, another beneficiary, owned 0.29.0 Hec. of
land in S.No.210/1 under patta No.933. In the circumstances, the
District Inspection Cell Officer has rightly reported that all the
beneficiaries are ineligible for free assignment of Government land
and had got assignment by suppressing all the above facts. The
revision petitioners have not denied these facts at any point of time
during the hearing before this forum. They have merely contended
that the District Collector had passed the impugned order without
giving them notice or hearing. The revision petitioners have now
been given adequate opportunity to put for their claims before this
revision forum but they have not produced any documentary
evidence to dispute these facts regarding their ineligibility.
Moreover, they have claimed that they are in continuous possession
of the land and have also sold the land to the third parties, when the
assignment had already been calcelled, indicating their mala fide
intention. Hence as regards the second issue, it is clearly found that
the revision petitioners were ineligible for free assignment of
Government lands and have got the same by suppressing the facts in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
their application. Thus, the finding of the District Collector that they
ave violated a fundamental condition of assignment is also upheld.
7. In the circumstances, it is seen from all the Revenue
records and submissions put forth by the revision petitioners, that
the District Collector, Thirunelveli, had rightly considered the case
i.e, violation of assignment condition to the effect that the land in
question was not brought into cultivation within the stipulated time,
and passed orders cancelling the free assignment to the ineligible
persons, and also passed orders for entering the land in the
Prohibitive Order Book, since the lands in question are highly
valuable and may be required for public purpose in future."
6. The learned single Judge elaborately considered the issues with
reference to the reasons given by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in the
cancellation order as well as the findings made by the revision Authorities.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that assignment of
Government land or grant of free patta cannot be claimed as an absolute right.
It is a concession granted by the Government by formulating schemes to
provide better livelihood to the poor landless people. Eligibility criteria are
contemplated both under the Scheme and under the Revenue Standing Orders.
Abuse of Government land at no circumstances be permitted by the Revenue
Authorities. In the event of any assignment to ineligible persons, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
Authorities granting assignment are accountable and answerable.
8. In the present case, the Authorities conducted inspection and
found that the appellant and other assignees are ineligible. Further the lands
are not utilised for agricultural purpose. The learned Single Judge has
considered all these issues in consonance with the Revenue Standing Orders
and the reasoning given by the District Collector and Commissioner of Land
Administration.
9. That being so, the appellant has not made out any acceptable
ground for the purpose of entertaining the writ appeal and consequently
stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.]
28.02.2025
veda
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
& Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
veda
28.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
