MR O ULAGANATHAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in ROC.No.17803/97/A5, dated 26.9.1997 and quash the same.

(2.) THE case of the pe1titioner is that an extent of 4.64 acres comprised in S.No.1023/3 in Burgur Village was assigned by the Tahsildar, Bhavani in favour of one Bandha Gowda, on certain conditions such as that the lands in question should not be alienated, gifted, sold or mortgaged or in any way encumbered within a period of ten years and that after the said period of ten years, they should not be transferred in favour of a person not belonging to the backward class that the said Bandha Gowda, was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands for the full period of ten years cultivating the said land that the petitioner purchased the above said lands from Bandha Gowda by a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1979 fully satisfying the above said conditions of the original grant made by the Special Tahsildar i.e. after the expiry of ten years from the date of the assignment and that the petitioner also belongs to a Backward Class (Devanga Chettiar).

(3.) THE respondent would further submit that as per condition No.8 if the assigned land contains any mines, that land should be vested with the Government that since the purchaser has not obtained any permission from the concerned authority as per G.O. dated 9.11.1979 in spite of the lapse of ten years as stated in condition No.7 of the patta, it is violation of the conditions laid down in Nos. 7 and 8 of the patta and also violation of condition prescribed in the above G.O. that therefore, the Government is entitled to resume the land if there are any violation of the above conditions that hence, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner and the assignee to appear for an enquiry on 3.2.1987 before the respondent that the assignee viz., Bandha Gowda has not turned up for enquiry on the appointed date, the petitioner has deputed his agent for enquiry that since the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are not valid, the respondent came to the conclusion that the assigned land has to be resumed for violation of the above conditions and passed resumption orders that though the petitioner was granted to carry out quarrying operations in the above land, the petitioner has no legal right over its title deed since the condition No.7 of the D.Namuna clearly states that the Government has right to resume the land that since the land is now vested with the Government allowing the petitioner further for quarrying will render huge loss of revenue to the State Exchequer.