IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06/09/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
W.P.NO. 9222 OF 1995
V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Chengalpattu District at
Kancheepuram.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Commissioner &
Secretary to Govt.,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Madras 9.
3. The President,
Tambaram Muslim Jamaith,
Tambaram, Madras 45. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S. Subramanian
For Respondents : Mrs.N.G. Kalaiselvi
1 & 2 Special Govt. Pleader
For Respondent-3 : Mr.K. Ilias Al
:J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the order
dated 25.5.1995 made in G.O.Ms.No.430/Revenue Department and to issue
necessary directions for resumption of land in S.No.324/1A1B in Tambaram and
thereafter to assign the said la etitioner.
2. The facts required to be noticed in detail are as follows
:-
The disputed land along with some land was intended to be utilised for
a Chavadi. The present respondent No.3 had applied to the Government to allot
a portion of the land for the purpose of running an Arabic School. Ultimately
the Government had d ed to place 23 cents (present disputed land) at the
disposal of the respondent No.3 subject to the condition that the respondent
No.3 should purchase a private land measuring 10 cents in S.No.329/1B1 of
Tambaram Village and place such land at the disposa l of the Government for
the purpose of utilising such alternative site for construction of a chavadi.
The Respondent No.3 was also required to pay the land value for the excess
extent of 13 cents and also to pay Rs.83/- to the contractor who already sta
rted some work prior to such allotment by the Government. Ultimately an order
was passed by the District Revenue Officer on 17.4.1963 placing such land at
the disposal of the respondent No.3 for running an Urudu Madrasa (Arabic
School). It was indicate d :
“ The grant is subject to the usual conditions laid down in B.S.O.24 –
Appendix and also to the following special conditions:
(1) That the land should be used only for running the Arabic School and for no
other purpose. . . . ”
The aforesaid action was impugned in W.P.No.616/63 which was disposed
of rejecting the contention of the then petitioner that the land had already
been vested with the Panchayat and the Government had no power to deal with
the matter.
Subsequently the respondent No.3 wanted to construct certain shops.
At that stage, W.P.No.1482/72 was filed by another person seeking for a writ
of Mandamus to cancel the allotment in favour of the respondent No.3 alleging
that the third responden d utilised the land for the purpose contrary to the
conditions imposed at the time of allotment of the land. The aforesaid writ
petition was disposed of with the direction to the Government to look into the
matter and particularly the representation ma de by the petitioner within 3
months from the date of the order. Subsequently, alleging that no action had
been taken by the Government on the direction issued by the High Court in
W.P.No.1482/72, the present petitioner and another person made represent ation
before the Government and since there was no response from the Government, the
present petitioner and the other person filed separate writ petitions, namely
W.P.Nos.7717 and 7718 of 1981 respectively with the same prayer in both the
writ petitions to resume the land. In W.P.No.7717 of 1981, filed by the
present petitioner, a prayer was also made for granting the land in favour of
the present petitioner and in the other writ petition prayer had also been
made for allotting the land for the purpose of constructing a community hall.
Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated
29.11.1989. It was noticed in the aforesaid writ petitions that pursuant to
the direction of this Court in the earlier W.P.No.1482/72 that out of 23
cents, 10 cents were granted on assignment in exchange of 10 cents of land
offered by the respondent No.3 and in respect of balance of 13 cents of land,
a direction had been issued to the respondent No.3 to pay certain amount as
apparently there h ad been some violation of the conditions. It was also
brought to the notice of this Court, the present respondent No.3 had filed
representation against such direction of the Government regarding additional
amount and the matter was pending before the Go vernment. Keeping in view all
these aspects, both the writ petitions were disposed of with the observation
that the prayer of the writ petitioner to cancel the assignment had become
infructuous and liberty was given to the present petitioner as well as the
other petitioner to approach the Government by filing appropriate application.
It was further directed that the representation made by the present respondent
No.3 regarding payment of additional amount should also be considered.
Thereafter, after a loss of about 5 to 6 years, the present impugned
order dated 25.5.1995 has been passed, wherein the representation of the
present petitioner to allot the land in his favour had been rejected and it
has been further observed that present respondent No.3 is not required to pay
any additional amount.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner
that since the school has not been constructed on the allotted land and same
was used for commercial purpose, the grant in favour of the third respondent
should have been cancelled a should have been allotted to the present
petitioner, who was prepared to deposit 5 times of the market value.
4. A counter has been filed by the third respondent refuting
the contentions raised in the writ petition.
5. The question relating to cancellation had already been
agitated in the earlier W.P.No.7717 of 1981 at the instance of the present
petitioner. By then the Government had already considered the question of
cancellation and had come to th n that instead of cancelling the grant, the
present respondent No.3 would be required to pay certain additional amount.
The prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of the grant as such had not
been allowed, but the petitioner was directed to approach the Government in
the matter relating to allotment of land in his favour. The Government was
also directed to consider the representation of the present respondent No.3
relating to payment of additional amount. Rightly or wrongly, this Court had
obser ved that the prayer for cancellation of the assignment had become
infructuous. The petitioner had not further challenged the order passed by
this Court. Even when the earlier writ petition was decided, the very same
allegations have been made and the G overnment had not decided to cancel the
grant, but, on the other hand had decided to realise the additional amount
from the third respondent.
6. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has contended
that since there is violation of the conditions imposed by the Government,
there is no question of directing the present respondent No.3 to pay any
additional amount and an order on of land should have been issued. As already
indicated, this question had already been raised in the previous writ
petition, but that portion of the prayer of the petitioner was not granted.
The matter having become final between the parties, is not available to be
raised once again.
7. The Government after considering the representation of the
third respondent has now waived the direction regarding payment of additional
amount. The above direction of the Government to waive the amount payable is
also being impugned. H has to be noticed that the present writ petition does
not purport to be a public interest litigation. The question as to whether
the respondent No.3 should be directed to pay further amount or not is
essentially a matter between the respondent No.3 and the Government and the
present petitioner has no stake in the matter. It has to be noticed that the
present petitioner happens to be a lessee under the respondent No.3 in respect
of one of the shops allegedly earlier constructed in violation of the con
ditions imposed by the Government. It is obvious that the petitioner is
trying to pursue his individual claim by challenging the order passed in
favour of the respondent No.3.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has
submitted that the shops in question had been constructed on 10 cents of land
which had been given to the respondent NO.3 in lieu of 10 cents of land
purchased and placed by the respon t the disposal of the Government. It has
been further submitted that the income from 13 shops in question is being
utilised for the purpose of running the school and it cannot be said strictly
that there is any violation of the conditions imposed by the Government.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refused this
contention by making submission to the effect that no school is being run and
the respondent No.3 has utilised the land only for commercial purpose.
Whether a school is being run or not ted question of fact which cannot be
decided in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Moreover,in the present writ petition the main question relates to resumption
of land. The prayer for resumption having not been granted earlier, cannot be
reagitated.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the
writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Chengalpattu District at
Kancheepuram.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Commissioner &
Secretary to Govt.,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Madras 9.
3. The President,
Tambaram Muslim Jamaith,
Tambaram, Madras 45.
Judgment in
W.P.No.9222 of 1995