A. KUMARASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the third respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dated 26.8.2011, wherein the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram held that the initial assignment of land to an extent of 5.00 acres in S. No. 183/1 situate in Thalambur Village given to the petitioner was illegal and without authority, although the G.O.Ms. No. 1135, Revenue Department dated 17.3.62 imposed a ban on assignment of the land within 20 miles radius, the impugned land is classified as Anadheenam land, which is not eligible for assignment under R.S.O. 15 and that the land in question is lying waste without cultivation. Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the correctness of the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, stated that the petitioner was assigned 5.00 acres of assessed waste dry land in S. No. 183/1 on 9.5.67 in Thalambur village, Chengalpattu Taluk by the fourth respondent -Tahsildar, Chengalpattu on payment of cost of the land at Rs. 100/ -. Immediately, after the assignment, the petitioner reclaimed that land by cultivating the same. Thereafter, he was also issued with the patta by the revenue authorities and the patta number is 373 for the land in question covered in S. No. 183/1. After seven years, the District Revenue Officer issued a show cause notice on 18.11.74 to show cause as to why the land assigned to the petitioner should not be cancelled for three reasons, namely, (a) that the land was kept as momool waste, hence, the conditions of assignment were violated; (b) that the petitioner was not likely to engage in personal cultivation of the land assigned and (c) that the assignment was not bona fide and secured free of land by abuse of his official position. Repudiating the above allegations, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation stating that the petitioner, immediately after the assignment, started cultivating the same and the order of assignment of the land in question was issued on payment of cost without there being any abuse of the official position. However, it was pleaded that the third respondent -District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram came to the conclusion that the allegations found in the show cause notice were proved. Aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration. However, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 4.9.84, set aside the order of the third respondent on merits and held that the order of cancellation was incorrect. On that basis, a further direction was given to the third respondent to assign the land afresh to the petitioner on collection of market value as per the rules and also to send the assignment proposal to the Government through the Commissioner of Land Administration. However, when the third respondent has not restored and regularised the assignment order, by accepting the market value of the land, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7796 of 1987 for restoration of the assignment of land. This Court, by order dated 8.10.87, directed the respondents to supply a copy of the order of cancellation of the assignment passed by the District Revenue Officer, on the basis of the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in D.Dis.E2/RP3/81 dated 4.9.84, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court's order. In the light of the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the District Revenue Officer, in his proceedings dated 17.11.87, again cancelled the original assignment order dated 9.5.67. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again came to this Court by filing W.P. No. 473 of 1988 challenging the order dated 17.11.87 passed by the District Revenue Officer.

(2.) THE respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that proposals were already submitted to the Government through the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration on 3.8.2009 and orders of the Government in this connection were awaited. In view of the said statement, this Court, by order dated 4.9.2000, disposed off the writ petition directing the District Revenue Officer to proceed further to assign the land afresh in favour of the petitioner as directed by the Commissioner at an early date with a further direction to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the property. In spite of a specific positive direction given to the District Revenue Officer, once again the request of the petitioner for restoration of the assignment order was rejected with a mala fide intention and in total contravention of the order passed by this Court on 4.9.2000. It was farther stated that the impugned order passed by the third respondent wrongly stated that the Government had imposed a ban of assignment of land within 20 miles radius in which the Thalambur village is situated, therefore, in view of the ban order imposed in G.O.Ms. No. 1135, Revenue dated 17.3.62, the assignment of the land cannot be considered. It was also further pleaded that the impugned order is not only arbitrary and unreasonable on facts, but also running contrary to the order passed by the second respondent -Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 4.9.84 in D.Dis.No.E2/RP3/81, which clearly says that the previous cancellation of the assignment was incorrect, and also against the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 473 of 1988 dated 4.9.2000, wherein this Court had specifically given a positive direction directing the District Revenue Officer to proceed further to assign the land afresh in favour of the petitioner as directed by the Commissioner at an early date. In view of the order passed by this Court read with one another order passed by the second respondent, the third respondent has no authority to reject the request of the petitioner for assignment. Having made a statement before this Court in W.P. No. 473 of 1988 that the petitioner was entitled for assignment of the land on payment of market value through the Government Advocate, they are estopped from refusing the assignment, especially when the respondents have fixed the market value of the land for the purpose of assigning it to the petitioner. By drawing the attention of this Court to a letter dated 8.1.2007 written by the District Collector, Kancheepuram to the second respondent -Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, the learned counsel stated that the District Collector, Kancheepuram had already fixed the market price of the land at Rs. 9,705/ - per cent in order to assign the land. However, strangely, after seeking information regarding the valuation of the land to comply with the order dated 4.9.2000 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 473 of 1988, for the simple reason that the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No. 665 of 2000 to comply with the order, with a mala fide intention, the third respondent rejected the request for assignment of the land by passing the impugned order. Therefore, the denial of the petitioner's request, he pleaded, is not only violative of the order passed by the second respondent, but also the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 473 of 1988 dated 4.9.2000.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently contended that the land in question was wrongly allotted to the petitioner in the year 1967. Subsequently, when the petitioner was residing in Chennai, not cultivated the land, on proper examination of the land in question that was wrongly assigned to the petitioner in the year 1967, the same was cancelled. Moreover, the land covered in survey number is an anadheenam land, which is ineligible for assignment as per G.O.Ms. No. 1135, Revenue Department dated 17.3.62, for, the Government have imposed a ban on assignment of the land within the area of 20 miles radius of the city and the village of Thalambur is also included in the said Government Order, hence, the respondents have rightly proceeded against the petitioner for cancelling the assignment order. When the impugned land is classified as anadheenam land, it is legally ineligible for assignment under R.S.O. 15. Moreover, on record, it was found out that the land is lying waste without any cultivation. Further, the land in question is also fully surrounded by residential area, as such, it is not fit for land assignment. That apart, the petitioner Mr. A. Kumarasamy was a Government servant, working as Personal Assistant to the Director of Adi -dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, by using his position, the assignment was obtained. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot find fault with the cancellation of the assignment.