S A RAMACHANDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals have been filed against, the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 26. 3. 1991 in W. P. No. 1881 of 1987, whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for, and quash the proceedings of the State government in their letter dated 2. 2. 1987 confirming the order of the commissioner, Land Administration, dated 17. 12. 1983. The appeal in W. A. No. 1228 of 1991 has been filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition and w. A. No. 1446 of 1991 has been filed by the State Government and the other authorities in the Department, who were the remaining respondents in the writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petitioner/first respondent herein has been assigned with an extent of 2 cents of land in Survey No. 1/3 (wet) with a well thereon by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai at Ramanathapuram, by his proceedings dated 11. 12. 1960 on collection of a sum of Rs. 1,515 stipulated to be the market value of the property. Some of the ayacutdars at muthuramalingapuram village appear to have made representations and the collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai by his proceedings dated 26. 6. 1978, after giving a show-cause notice and an opportunity to the first respondent has ordered the cancellation of the assignment of the land with samudhayam well situated thereon. THE first respondent pursued the matter before the Board of Revenue, which came to be rejected and the thereupon before the Government. THE Government in g. O. Ms. No. 2421, Revenue Department, dated 21. 1. 1980 referred the matter and the first respondent writ petitioner to the Board of Revenuefor orders on his petition and it was at that stage, the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Administration by his notice dated 12. 10. 1981 proposed to revise the order of assignment is the purported exer- cise of his powers under the Board's standing Orders (B. S. O) 15 (18 ). After giving an opportunity and after hearing the first respondent-writ petitioner, the Commissioner, Land administration passed an order dated 17. 12. 1983 and recording a finding that the assignment made suffered material irregularity, the order of cancellation earlier passed was not interfered with and the appeal of the first respondent came to be dismissed. Once again the first respondent herein went before the Government and the Government rejected the claim of the first respondent by its proceedings dated 2. 2. 1987. THE first respondent herein filed the writ petition as noticed earlier before this Court to quash the proceedings dated 2. 2. 1987 and 17. 12. 1983.

(3.) WE have carefully considered all these aspects adverted to by the different authorities like the District Collector, the Board of Revenue and the Government on the one hand and the learned single Judge on the other. The learned Judge could not have taken the view that what was assigned was land and not of the well, despite his observation that major portion of the property was occupied by the well only. The well needs necessarily some surrounding space also for access and use. Having regard to the extent of the land itself and the location of the well and the earlier classification of the property as samudhayan well, it is but necessary to view the property assigned to be mainly well only with some surrounding space of land. Though Board's Standing Order No. 15 (14) envisaged the authorities undertaking assignment of lands to value the well or standing trees or other properties also in the extent of the land to be assigned, that is not the same thing permitting assignment of well simpliciter, de hors all other consideration and on the facts of this case it has to be borne in mind then what is sought to be assigned was in reality and in substance a WEll and well alone, particularly when such well stood classified in the village accounts as samudhayam well meaning thereby well for the common use of the villagers. In our view, the properties like the one which had been classified as samudhayam well cannot be assigned at all by the authorities to any individual to the detriment of the public. WE are of the view that the properties of the nature are to be held and has got to be owned and hold by the government in trust for the public and there cannot be any breach of such trust to the detriment of the public and public interest. The sum and substance of the reasons assigned by the District Collector as also by the Board really are in recognition of this vital and well settled principle.