VALLIAMMAL Vs. TAHSILDAR PONNERI TALUK PONNERI THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 4.4.2002 whereunder the petitioner's request for assignment of the Government poramboke land was rejected. THE grievance of the petitioner is that she is in occupation of the land for more than 30 years and the Revenue Authorities are collecting ?B? memo charges, hence she is entitled for the patta or assignment and that the rejection is illegal.

(2.) I carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot claim either assignment or issue of patta by way of right. Collection of ?B? memo charges from the petitioner for illegal occupation also would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim assignment or continuation of the occupation of the poramboke land. When the petitioner has no right to enforce, in my view, the writ petition itself is mis-conceived. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Tiruchirapalli Palaporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam v. Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy (1999)1 MLJ. 264: (1998)2 C.T.C. 610, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 can be invoked only to protect the existing right of the petitioner and it cannot be invoked to create a new right, which did not exist on the date of the filing of the writ petition. On the basis of the ruling of the Apex Court, the writ petition is a mis-conceived one as the petitioner do not have any right to continue the illegal occupation of the poramboke land and claim assignment as of right. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No.21318 of 2002 is dismissed.