LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-18

A.GLORY Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On March 14, 2018
A.Glory Appellant
V/S
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are filed seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in respect of the subject matter land in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.277, Revenue Department dated 04.06.2004. While W.P.No.87 of 2017 is filed by a Society, all other writ petitions are filed by the individuals, however for seeking the same relief.

(2.) All these petitioners are claiming to be either Ex-servicemen or the legal heirs of such Ex-servicemen. The case of the petitioners is as follows: In pursuant to the World War II, the Government decided to allot land to Ex-servicemen, who participated in such war. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.966 was issued by the Public (Resettlement Department) dated 22.04.1946, allotting land to the Exservicemen at Goodapakkam Village. Another G.O.Ms.No.277 was issued by the Revenue Department dated 04.06.2004, directing the District Collector to issue patta to the Exservicemen, who are in possession of their respective land for more than 30 years in pursuant to the allotment made as per G.O.Ms.No.966. On 23.11.2004, the District Collector allotted house sites for 53 Ex-servicemen, who are continuously in possession for more than 30 years. However, the respondents failed to issue patta in respect of the agricultural land, which are allotted to the respective parties who are in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years. A representation was given to the respondents on 16.07.2012 for issuing patta. The Secretary, Revenue Department, issued an order on 25.05.2015, directing the District Collector to take proper steps to issue patta to Ex-servicemen, who are in possession of the land for more than 30 years. However till this date, patta was not given. Therefore, these writ petitions are filed with the relief as stated supra.

(3.) The respondents filed counter affidavit in each cases, however, with common contentions. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits is as follows: