BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15/07/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.1295 of 2006
K.Kaliammal ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Avudayarkoil Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. ..Respondents.
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records in respect of the order passed in O.M.E.2/49836/2003, dated 05.01.2006,
on the file of the first respondent, to quash the same and also to direct the
respondents 1 to 4 to issue assignment order in respect of the land to an extent
of 0.39.5 ares comprised in S.No.56/7 of Ilambavayal Village, Karoor Vattam,
Avudayar Koil Taluk, Pudukkottai District in favour of the petitioner getting
the market value of Rs.23,404/- as already fixed by the third respondent.
!For Petitioner ... M/s.V.Nagendran
^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Muruganandham
:ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the
order No.O.M.E.2/49836/2003, dated 05.01.2006, with a consequential prayer for
the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to
4 to issue assignment order in respect of a land measuring 0.39.5 Ares,
comprised in S.No.56/7 of Ilambavayal Village, Karoor Vattam, Avudayar Koil
Taluk, Pudukkottai District, at the market value of Rs.23,404/-(Rupees twenty
three thousand four hundred and four only) as assessed by the department.
2. The admitted facts reads as under:
The petitioner is a poor landless Harijan lady, who is in possession and
enjoyment of Nanja Tharisu land measuring 0.39.5 Ares (98 cents) in S.No.56/7 as
detailed above. The petitioner was issued with “B-Memo” by the Village
Administrative Officer and Tahsildar of Avudaiyar Koil Taluk, admitting the
possession of the petitioner over the land. The petitioner made a request for
assignment of said land in her favour, which was allowed vide order, dated
13.10.1986 and the land was assigned in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner invested more than Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) for the
development of the land for use by the petitioner.
3. After a period of seven years, the assignment order was cancelled on
the ground that the petitioner had obtained assignment by suppressing the
employment of the petitioner’s husband. The appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order of cancellation of assignment was also dismissed.
4. The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of assignment by
filing W.P.No.7261 of 1994. This Honourable Court upheld the order of
cancellation,however, permitted the petitioner to seek assignment on payment of
market value.
5. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court reads as under :
“However, I make it clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of this Writ
Petition, it will be open for the petitioner to prefer an application before the
competent authority assignment of the land in question on the basis of payment
of market value, in which event, the Government Authority shall consider and
dispose of the same dispassionately and in accordance with law, after affording
an opportunity of being heard to all affected parties.”
6. In pursuance to the permission granted by this Court, the petitioner
applied for assignment of the land on payment of market value. On request of
the petitioner, The Tahsildar, Avudaiyar Koil Taluk, Pudukkotai District/fourth
respondent assessed the market value of the land at Rs.23,404/-(Rupees twenty
three thousand four and four only) and also directed respondent No.4 to issue
assignment letter to the petitioner as per rules.
7. The respondent No.3 also sent a communication to the petitioner
directing her to approach respondent No.4 to get the assignment patta, on
payment of the market value as assessed.
8. The petitioner accordingly applied to respondent No.4 for assignment of
the land after obtaining “No Objection” from the Revenue Inspector. In spite
of the submission of application, the petitioner was not issued assignment order
and after a period of two years, the assignment request has been rejected on
the ground that there was objection by the people for assignment of the land to
the petitioner, and for the reason that the husband of the petitioner was in
Government employment. The impugned orders cannot be sustained. The fact that
the husband of the petitioner is a Government employee was considered by this
Court by upholding the order of cancellation of assignment patta earlier
ordered free of costs.
9. Inspite, the husband of the petitioner being in public employment, this
Court had directed the petitioner to apply for assignment patta on payment of
the market value. It is not disputed that in pursuance to the application made
by the petitioner, the market value was assessed and that the petitioner had
always been ready and willing to deposit the market value and the third
respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer passed specific orders for grant of
assignment patta on receipt of payment. Thereafter, there was no reason to
cancel the said order, especially, without giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. The order of refusal of grant of assignment patta is on the
face of it is arbitrary, as one of the ground taken is that the husband of the
petitioner was in government employment. This ground was not available to deny
the assignment, as this was duly considered by this Court by giving liberty to
the petitioner to get assignment patta on payment of market value. The
observation is made while dismissing this Writ petition is to give equitable
relief to the petitioner, keeping in view of the long possession and that the
petitioner had made certain improvements over the land.
10. The second ground for rejection cannot also be sustained for
assignment of land in favour of a person whose husband is in government
employment cannot be objected to by the general public, specially, when the
decision to grant assignment already stood taken on payment of the market
value. It is by way of equitable relief that the petitioner was permitted to buy
the land at the market value to which the general public can have no objection.
As the land is not said to be used for public purpose or right of any public is
to be affected by grant of assignment in favour of the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition, by
contending, that the writ filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, for lack
of enforceable legal right. The writ filed by the petitioner to challenge patta
granted in his favour was dismissed by this court. The petitioner, therefore,
cannot file the 2nd writ petition claiming the same relief.
12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
that litigations between the parties are pending in the civil court and
therefore, it is not proper for this court to interfere in the writ
jurisdiction, as the matter is to be adjudicated in the civil court, after the
parties are allowed to lead evidence.
13. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
that the petitioner has concealed the material facts about the employment of her
husband which dis-entitles the equitable discretionary relief to the petitioner.
14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents
deserve to be rejected, as the petitioner had applied for grant of patta on
demand, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ
petition. The reason for non-grant of patta cannot be sustainable in law as
observed above. The dispute raised in this Writ Petition is not a subject-
matter of the civil suit,which could disentitle the petitioner for relief under
writ jurisdiction.
15. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set
aside. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to grant assignment patta in favour
of the petitioner on receipt of the market value assessed. However,keeping in
view the fact that the petitioner did not have any enforceable right to get the
patta and the assignment was made in the year 2003, the petitioner shall pay
interest at the rate of 9% on the amount assessed. The petitioner is directed
to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. within two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The
respondents, thereafter on payment of market value along with interest, is
directed to issue assignment patta to the petitioner. No costs.
vsn
To
1. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Avudayarkoil Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.