SRILA SRI SIVAGNANA BALAYA SWAMIGAL MADALAYAM, MAILAM AND BOMMAYYAPALAYAM BY ITS ADHEENAPARAMPARAI DHARMAKARTHA, SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OLD S.No. 221/1 -A, in Mailam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, South Arcot District, measuring 13.47 acres originally belonged to one Thirumudi Ghettiar and two others of Pondicherry. The entire land was subject to a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the petitioner in these two cases, namely, Srila Sri Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Madalayam, Mailam. The mortgage was of the year 1933. In the year 1941, an extent of 31 cents out of the total extent of 13.47 acres was sub -divided as 221/1A/1A, and the remaining extent was sub -divided as 221/1A/1B. For the purpose of constructing a public well, the said extent of 31 cents was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1941. The compensation amount was paid to the petitioner -mutt as usufructuary mortgagee. The petitioner purchased the remaining property from the previous owner by a registered document dated 14th September, 1947. Though the extent of 31 cents was acquired for the purpose of constructing a bore -well, the idea was given up. On coming to know of this abandonment of the idea, the previous owners applied to the Sub -Collector, Tindivanam, to re -assign the land to them on receipt of the compensation amount. The Sub -Collector informed them on 31st March, 1947, that their claims would be considered after the site was transferred as assessed waste.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the third respondent in these two cases, Ramaswami, an ex -police constable, encroached upon the said extent of 31 cents and put up a thatched building. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam, after following the prescribed procedure under tire Land Encroachment Act directed eviction of the third respondent out of the land which was then classified as well -poramboke. Against that order, the third respondent filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore. That officer agreeing with the Revenue Divisional Officer, stated that the encroachment was objectionable. Even before these proceedings were started, the petitioner -mutt had become the owner of the adjacent property. The mutt made applications to the Sub -Collector for assigning the sad extent of 31 cents to it, for the purpose of Tamil College which it is running. In disposing of the appeal, the District Revenue Officer stated that the mutt -authorities had risked for assignment in their favour and that their request deserved sympathetic consideration. Against the order of dismissal, the third respondent preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue. The Biard agreeing with the District Revenue Officer, found the encroachment objectionable and dismissed the revision. Against that order, the third respondent preferred a revision to the Government. The Government, by order dated on 6th April, 1968, rejected the revision holding that they saw no reason to interfere. The third respondent thereupon made further representations to the Government for reconsideration of their previous orders. By order dated 26th April, 1969, the Government reversed their earlier decision and stated that the third respondent's case was a fit case for consideration and directed assignment to be given in his favour. It is to quash this order that the mutt had filed W.P. No. 3546 of 1969.

(3.) THE respondents oppose these petitions contending that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and that the assignment in favour of the third respondent has been made only in accordance with the relevant rules.