DURAI SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for a declaration declaring G.O.145, Revenue (L.R.1-2) dated 04.03.2005 consequent to the order of the third respondent in D1/RP19/1998 Land Reforms, dated 10.04.1998 as illegal, null and void.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary particulars, the relevant facts which require mention are as follows: One Dorairaj, was the owner of properties in Dalavoipattinam and Chinnakkampalyam villages. His holding of an extent of 22.36.0 hectares (5.589 std. Acres), was found to be in excess of the ceiling limit under the Land Reforms Act. The lands in Dalavoipattinam village were found suitable for distribution to the landless poor and accordingly, assignment thereof was made in favour of the petitioners. A tentative value was fixed and the petitioners had also made initial payment in respect thereof in sums of Rs.50/-. As regards the properties held by the said Dorairaj in Dalavoipattinam village, a temple viz., Sri Varadaraja Perumal temple claimed title over the same resulting in proceedings before Court which eventually ended in favour of Dorairaj. In the mean while, Dorairaj moved a review petition in R.P.No.19 of 1998 before the Land Commissioner inter alia submitting that in the event of lands which stood in his name being found in excess as an outcome of pending litigation regards the property situated in Dalavoipattinam village, he was willing to offer the properties in Chinnakkampalyam village for the purpose of acquisition. This plea was accepted by the Land Commissioner, who under orders dated 10.04.1998 informed that in the event of the litigation in respect of holdings in Dalavoipattinam village, concluding in favour of Dorairaj, his holdings in Chinnakkampalyam village, may be taken up for the purpose of acquisition and distribution to the landless poor. Pursuant to such order and upon conclusion of the legal battle, G.O.145, Revenue (L.R.1-2) dated 04.03.2005, was issued informing that the holdings of Dorairaj which were found to be in excess were in Dalavoipattinam village.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were residents of Dalavoipattinam village and the effect of G.O.145, Revenue (L.R.1-2) dated 04.03.2005, would be that they would have to tend to properties assigned to them 40 kms. away from their place of residence.