H BELLI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ?To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents from letting out the property belonging to the first respondent and classified as Class ?A? in the G.L.A. Rules 1937 or dealing with it in any manner contrary to the Rules aforesaid.?

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a social worker and interested in the welfare of the society and also is attempting to enforce the laws through legal machinery. Certain lands in the cantonment area are controlled and managed by the 4th respondent. In 1986 the respondents 2 and 3 sought the land for their use after the lease period in their favour is over. It seems initially the lands were classified as agricultural lands and class ?C? when it was leased out to persons who belonged to lower strata of the society. In 1986 the 4th respondent handed over the lands to the respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged in the affidavit that subsequent to the surrender of the lands by the lessees the fifth respondent has been illegally permitted to raise crops and he is making merry out of the State executor and is cultivating the lands and taking the income from the lands. It is stated that the 5th respondent is owning about 80 acres and they are under cultivation and he is raising crops like carrot, cabbage, potato and garlic etc. It seems the petitioner lodged his protest to the respondents 2 and 3 and issued a number of notices to the parties concerned and no action has been taken according to the allegations made in the affidavit. It is alleged in the affidavit that the Government lands are not available to be misused and it is not prerogative of the respondents 2 and 3 to confer a privilege not available in them to the 5th respondent, that poor farmers have been removed from the lands on the ground that it is required for the exclusive use of the respondents 2 and 3. However, it is seen that the fifth respondent is cultivating the lands and it is stated that the property of the State cannot and should not be used for benefiting a few. It is also alleged that when the lease was cancelled it was due to the security reasons and by leasing out in favour of the 5th respondent the cancellation of lease itself is under cloud of doubt, according to the petitioner. THE petitioner has been making representation since 1987 since the lands have been used by the 5th respondent and it should not be done. THE petitioner has been given a reply by the Lt.Col.Officiating Training, Madras, Regimental Centre, Wellington on 8.7.1971 saying that no defence land has been given on lease to any one. THE defence Estate lands under the case of this Centre is being managed, according to Rules 2 and 4. When another person by name Nanjappa made a complaint he has been replied that the case has been examined and it is found that private party has been given any lease and thereafter the amount was realised by way of sale proceeds from the garden fund etc., has been deposited in the Government Treasury by the M.R.C.Wellington. This letter Nanjappa has received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. Not satisfied with that the petitioner made a representation to Thiru Shri Sharad Pavvar through the Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha on 17.10.1991 to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and also has written the letter to the officer Commanding Station, Madras House, Wellington.