K M NALINISHREE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Though the matter was listed for direction, in view of the fact that the question involved being the same for consideration of stay as well as for the disposal of the writ petition, by consent of both the counsel appearing for either parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE husband of the present petitioner was serving under the Indian Air Force. On 31.3.1967, the land measuring 3.89 acres in No.7, Karanipuduchery, Chengalpattu Taluk was assigned in favour of late Madhavan, the husband of the present petitioner free of cost for his meritorious service during wars. In 1988, proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Tahsildar, Chingleput for transfer of patta in favour of the late husband of the petitioner. While matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 10733 of 1993 was filed by the late husband of the petitioner for a direction to remove all the encroachments made by the Forest Department. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the husband of the petitioner having died, the present petitioner was substituted. In the aforesaid writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that in lieu of the original land assigned, the respondents were prepared to offer equivalent land in Survey No.67 (3.179 acres) and Survey No.66 (area of 72 cents). Recording the aforesaid undertaking of the respondents, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the earlier writ petition with the following observation:

(3.) APART from the aforesaid Standing Order, the fact remains that the land was originally assigned to the husband of the petitioner free of cost and necessary steps could not be taken by the Government in time. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Government had undertaken to provide alternate land and the alternate land had been chosen by the Government itself and such offer had been accepted by the petitioner. At the time of disposal of the earlier writ petition, there was no direction by this court that the writ petitioner would be required to pay the value of the land. The order passed in the earlier writ petition had not been challenged by the Government and had become final. Even in the subsequent Contempt Petition also which was disposed of on 8.3.2000, there was no direction that the petitioner would be required to pay the value. The initial assignment of the land was supposed to be free of cost and merely because the matter had remained pending due to some reason or the other, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the value of the land.