{"id":119616,"date":"2004-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004"},"modified":"2014-12-07T19:29:20","modified_gmt":"2014-12-07T13:59:20","slug":"vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 22\/12\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN            \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU             \n\nW.A.No.977 of 1998  \n\nVengaivasal Village Panchayat \nby its President                                                .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamilnadu\n   by its Secretary to the\n   Revenue Department \n   Fort St.George\n   Chennai  600 009.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Land \n   Administration, Ezhilagam\n   Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. \n\n3. The District Collector\n   Kancheepuram. \n\n4. The Commissioner  \n   St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union  \n   Chennai.                                                     .. Respondents\n\n        PRAYER:  Appeal under Clause 15 of  the  Letters  Patent  against  the\norder  of  the  learned  Single  Judge dated 4.12.1997 made in W.P.No.18208 of\n1997.\n\n!For Appellant  :       Mr.K.Chandru\n                        Senior Counsel\n                        for Mr.K.Kannan\n\n^For Respondents:       Mr.E.Sampathkumar  \n                        Government Advocate\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) <\/p>\n
        The core question of law that arises in the above appeal, as projected
\nby Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is  ”  whether  the
\naction of the Government, first respondent, in passing the impugned government
\norder,  viz.,  G.O.(Grade)  No.239,  Revenue  Department,  dated 27.2.1997, by
\nexercising the power conferred under Board Standing  Order  21,  reclassifying
\nthe public road, which power vests with the appellant\/village panchayat (local
\nbody)  whose  vested  right, power and jurisdiction are well defined under the
\nprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act,  1944,  ignoring  the  concept  of
\nPanchayat  Raj  enabling  them  to function as institutions of self-government
\nunder Article 243G of the Constitution of India, is valid?”\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The  appellant  in  the  appeal  is  the  writ  petitioner  in
\nW.P.No.1820  8 of 1997 filed for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
\ncall for the records of the first respondent in  G.O.(Grade)  No.239,  Revenue
\nDepartment,  dated  27.2.1997,  quash  the same and to forbear the respondents
\nfrom reclassifying the property in  Survey  Nos.237  and  238  of  Vengaivasal
\nVillage  from  Vandi-patti  (cart-track)  Poromboke  to  Natham  Poromboke and
\nassigning it to Raj Bhavan last grade servants.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Concededly, the appellant\/Village  Panchayat  is  discharging  its
\nrights  and  duties  defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
\nAct, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the  “Act”)  through  the  body  elected
\nunder the provisions of the said Act and the Rules farmed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  character of the impugned land located in Survey Nos.237 and
\n238  of  Vengaivasal  Village  is   classified   as   Vandi-pattai   poromboke
\n(Cart-track),  a  road  within  the meaning of the “public road” defined under
\nSection 2(28) of the Act, and it is not in dispute that the  same  vests  with
\nthe appellant\/Village panchayat as per Section 125(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   On  a  representation made by the last grade employees of the Raj
\nBhavan,  the  Government\/first  respondent,  by  G.O.(Grade)  No.239,  Revenue
\nDepartment,  dated 27.2.1997, which is impugned in the writ petition, proposed
\nto reclassify the property in Survey Nos.237 and 238  of  Vengaivasal  Village
\nfrom Vandi-patti Poromboke (cart-track) to Natham Poromboke, and to assign the
\nsame  to  the last grade servants of the Raj Bhavan without any consent of the
\nappellant\/Village Panchayat  by  way  of  appropriate  resolution,  under  the
\npretext that the appellant\/ Village Panchayat had not responded to the request
\nof  the Collector made in his letter dated 17.2.19897 requiring the appellant\/
\nVillage Panchayat to pass necessary resolution to reclassify the impugned land
\nfor the purpose of assigning the same to the last grade employees of  the  Raj
\nBhavan.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Based on the strength of the impugned G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue
\nDepartment, dated 27.2.1997, the Commissioner\/fourth respondent, in his letter
\ndated 12.3.1997 required the appellant\/Village Panchayat to  pass  appropriate
\nresolution  for reclassifying the Vandi-patti Poromboke (cart-track) to Natham
\nPoromboke.  Hence, the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, neither  the
\nGovernment nor the Collector filed any counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   However,  the  learned  Single Judge in the order dated 4.12.1997
\nmade in W.P.No.18208 of 1997, interpreting Section 125(2) of the Act, came  to
\nthe  conclusion  that what is required under Section 125(2) of the Act is only
\nconsultation with the panchayat, but not their  consent,  and  held  that  the
\nright  of  the  Panchayat  is  not  affected  in  any  manner  by the impugned
\nG.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997 and therefore, refused
\nto interfere with the impugned G.O.( Grade) No.239, Revenue Department,  dated
\n27.2.1997  and dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or violation
\nof the provisions of the Act.  Aggrieved by that the writ petitioner has filed
\nthe above appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Till the above appeal was taken up for final hearing on  13.12.200
\n4, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit.  However, we
\ngranted  time  till  today  (22.12.2004)  to  enable  the Government to file a
\ncounter affidavit.  Surprisingly,  the  respondents  have  chosen  to  file  a
\ncounter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent, which is dated 28.10.2003
\nonly today,  viz., 22.12.2004 under S.R.No.4 665.  The relevant portion of the
\ncounter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“I submit that the land in S.No.237 and 238 of Vengaivasal  Village,  Tambaram
\nTaluk,   Kancheepuram   District   was   classified   as   “Battai  Poramboke”
\n(Cart-track).  The Government in G.O.239, Revenue Department, dated  27.2.1997
\nordered  for  the  assignment  of  1.88.0  Hectares  in  the  above land to 71
\nemployees of Raj Bhavan on collection of market value.  In the G.O.  cited the
\nGovernment ordered that the classification of the above land be transferred to
\nvillage site so as to enable the authorities to assign the lands and in favour
\nof the employees.  The  Government  directed  the  Collector  of  Kancheepuram
\nDistrict to  take  further  action  in  pursuant  to the Government Order.  In
\npursuant to  the  Government  orders  cited,  the  Collector  of  Kancheepuram
\nDistrict initiated further action for the assignment of the above lands to the
\nRaj  Bhavan  Employees  and  towards  that  end  addressed the St.Thomas Mount
\nPanchayat  Union  Commissioner  and  the  President  of  Vengaivasal   Village
\nPanchayat   in  his  letter  No.Rc.18350-99-N5  dated  17.2.1997  favouring  a
\nresolution, for the transfer of classification  of  the  land  from  ”  Vandai
\nBattai” (Cart-tract) to Village Site.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The facts explained above by the Collector\/third respondent would
\nonly  go  to  show that even before getting an appropriate resolution from the
\nappellant\/Village Panchayat, the  Government  had  chosen  to  reclassify  the
\nVandi-patti   poromboke   (Cart-Track)   land  to  Natham  poromboke  land  by
\nG.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997 ,  by  exercising  the
\npower conferred under Board Standing Order 21, ignoring the relevant provision
\nof Section 125(1) read with Section 2(2 8) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  respondents,  of  course,  have also taken a stand that the
\nGovernment is empowered, by notification, to exclude from the operation of the
\nAct any such public road under Section  125(2)  of  the  Act  and  it  is  not
\ndisputed in the counter affidavit that during the pendency of the writ appeal,
\nthe  parties  to  the  appeal  are  maintaining  statusquo  with regard to the
\nimpugned land and the possession of the land has not been handed over  to  any
\nindividual pursuant to the impugned Government order.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Highlighting the case of the appellant\/Village Panchayat as well
\nas the stand taken by the  respondents,  referred  to  above  in  the  counter
\naffidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  third respondent, Mr.K.Chandru, learned
\nsenior counsel appearing for the  appellant\/Village  Panchayat  contends  that
\nwhen there are specific statutory provisions for reclassifying the public road
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act, which vests with the Panchayat
\nunder  Section  125(1)  of the Act, and the Government is empowered to exclude
\nfrom the operation of the Act any such public road  by  a  notification  under
\nSection  125(2)  of  the  Act,  the  Government  ought  not to have passed the
\nimpugned G.O.  exercising the power conferred under the Board  Standing  Order
\n21, as the same violates the spirit and scope of Sections 125(1) and 125(2) of
\nthe Act as well as the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Per contra, Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, Government Advocate appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondents, reiterating the stand taken by the  respondents  as
\nexplained  in  the  counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent,
\nreferred to above, attempts to sustain the power of the Government to pass the
\nimpugned G.O.   However,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  fairly
\nconcedes  that  no notification was issued by the Government for reclassifying
\nthe impugned land running through the Survey Nos.237 and  238  of  Vengaivasal
\nVillage  from  Vandipatti  Poromboke  (cart-track)  to  Natham  Poromboke,  by
\nexercising the power conferred under Section 125(2) of the Act till date.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  We have given careful consideration to the  submissions  of  both
\nsides.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Under the facts and circumstances of the case explained above and
\nin  the  light  of the rival contentions advanced on behalf of both sides, the
\ncore question that arises  for  our  consideration  in  the  above  appeal  is
\n“whether  the  action  of  the  Government,  first  respondent, in passing the
\nimpugned government order, viz., G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated
\n27.2.1997, by exercising the power conferred under Board  Standing  Order  21,
\nreclassifying  the  public  road, which power vests with the appellant\/village
\npanchayat (local body) whose vested right, power  and  jurisdiction  are  well
\ndefined  under  the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1944, ignoring
\nthe concept of Panchayat Raj enabling them  to  function  as  institutions  of
\nselfgovernment under Article 243G of the Constitution of India, is valid?”\n<\/p>\n
        16.1.   In  this  regard, we are inclined to refer the definition of ”
\npublic road” as defined under Section 2(28) of the Act, the vesting  right  of
\nthe  Panchayat  on  the same under Section 125(1) of the Act, and the power of
\nthe Government to exclude from the operation of the Act any such public  road,
\nby notification, provided under Section 125(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        16.2.  Sections 2(28) and 125 of the Act read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section:2  Definitions.-\n<\/p>\n
(1) to (27) …\n<\/p>\n
(28)  “public  road”  means  any  street, road, square, court, alley, passage,
\ncart-track, foot-path or riding-path, over which the public have  a  right  of
\nway, whether a thoroughfare or not, and includes-\n<\/p>\n
(a) the roadway over any public bridge or causeway;\n<\/p>\n
(b) the footway attached to any such road, public bridge or causeway; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)  the  drains attached to any such road, public bridge or causeway, and the
\nland, whether covered or not by any pavement,  veranda,  or  other  structure,
\nwhich  lies  on either side of the roadway upto the boundaries of the adjacent
\nproperty, whether that property is private property or property  belonging  to
\nthe State or Central Government.”\n<\/p>\n
Section:125  Vesting of public roads in village panchayat.-
\n(1)  All public roads in any village (other than roads which are classified by
\nthe Government as National Highways or State Highways  or  as  major  district
\nroads  or  as  panchayat  union  roads)  shall  vest  in the village panchayat
\ntogether with all pavements, stones, and other materials thereof,  all  works,
\nmaterials  and  other  things  provided  therefor, all drains, drainage works,
\ntunnels and culverts whether made at the cost  of  the  village  panchayat  or
\notherwise,  in,  alongside  or  under  such roads,and all works, materials and
\nthings appertaining thereto.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The Government may, by notification, exclude from the  operation  of  this
\nAct any such public road, drain, drainage work, tunnel or culvert and may also
\nmodify or cancel such notification.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
        17.   A  bare  reading of the definition of “public road” specifically
\nincludes a “cart-track” and therefore, there cannot be any  dispute  that  the
\nimpugned  Vandi-patti  poromboke (cart-track) is covered within the definition
\nof “public road” under Section 2(28) of the Act.  Consequently,  by  operation
\nof  Section  125(1)  of  the  Act, referred to above, the impugned Vandi patti
\nPoromboke (cart-track), which is read into the definition  of  “public  road”,
\nshall vest  with  the Village Panchayat.  Such a vested right conferred on the
\nvillage panchayat with respect to the public road, in our considered  opinion,
\ncannot  be interfered or encroached even by the Government, without giving any
\nopportunity to the Village Panchayat (local body) and  getting  their  consent
\nfor such reclassification.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   In  the  instant  case,  at no point of time, the Government had
\nsought for the consent of the Village panchayat by appropriate resolutions for
\nthe proposal  of  reclassification  of  the  impugned  land  from  Vandi-patti
\nPoromboke (cart-track)  to  Natham  Poromboke.   Obviously, there is a glaring
\nviolation not only to the principles  of  natural  justice  but  also  to  the
\nprocedure contemplated for such reclassification.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Of course, an attempt was made on behalf of the Government to say
\nthat  since  the Government is empowered, by notification, to exclude from the
\noperation of the Act any such public road, by exercising the  power  conferred
\nunder  Section  125(2) of the Act, the Village Panchayat need not be given any
\nnotice for the said proposal and the consent of the Village Panchayat  by  way
\nof appropriate resolutions is also not required, and what was required is only
\na consultation but not consent, as held by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   We  are,  however, unable to appreciate such proposition because
\nthe Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is intended to  implement  the  principles
\nrelating  to Panchayats in the Constitution to provide for among other things,
\nGrama Sabha in a village or group of villages; constitution of  Panchayats  at
\nvillage and other level or levels; direct elections to all seats in Panchayats
\nat  the  village  and  intermediate  level,  if  any,  and  to  the offices of
\nChairperson of Panchayats at such levels; devolution by the State  Legislature
\nof  powers  and  responsibilities  upon  the  Panchayats  with  respect to the
\npreparation of plans for economic development and social justice and  for  the<\/p>\n
implementation  of development schemes; and also to give sufficient safeguards
\nfor protecting their vested rights conferred under the provisions of  the  Act
\nwithin their respective jurisdictions.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   In  the post independent period, realising the fact that social,
\npolitical and economic development of rural area depends on the successful and
\neffective working of ‘local self Government’, Gandhiji had aptly remarked that
\n`True democracy can not be worked by twenty men sitting at the Centre.  It has
\nto be worked from below by the people of every village.  Article 40  in  Part
\nIV  of  the  Constitution of India directs that the States shall take steps to
\norganise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and  authority  as
\nmay be necessary to enable them to function as units of self Government.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   The  concept  of  Panchayat Raj system in our country, enshrined
\nunder Chapter IX of the Constitution of India relating to the Panchayats, vide
\nArticles 243 and 243A to 243O of the Constitution, is generally  a  three-tier
\narrangement,  the  first  at  village  or group of villages (lower level), the
\nsecond at block level (middle level) and third at the  district  level  (upper
\nlevel),  intended  to  give  a  free  hand  to the respective panchayat in the
\nmatters of their internal administration  which  is  well  defined  under  the
\nstatutory provisions  of  the  Act.    Such  power  conferred by the statutory
\nprovisions in consonance with the spirit  and  object  of  the  Constitutional
\nprovisions inserted by the Constitution (73rd Amendment Act), 1992, whereunder
\nPart  IX of the Constitution of India was inserted, in our considered opinion,
\ncannot be lightly sidelined by the Government by  passing  the  impugned  G.O.
\nresorting  to  the provisions of the Board Standing Order 21, or otherwise the
\nconsequence will be not only an infringement of  the  powers  of  the  Village
\nPanchayat conferred under the Act, but also a violation to Article 243G of the
\nConstitution  of India, whereunder respective panchayats are endowed with such
\npowers and authority as may  be  necessary  to  enable  them  to  function  as
\ninstitutions of self-government.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  The power conferred on the Government under Section 125(2) of the
\nAct  is  not  absolute  and  independent  but the same is subject to the power
\nconferred under Section 125(1) of the Act protecting the vested right  of  the
\nvillage  panchayats, which is endowed with such powers and authority as may be
\nnecessary to enable them to function as institutions  of  self-government,  as
\nprovided under  Article  243G of the Constitution of India.  If that be so, we
\nare unable to agree with the view  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  mere
\nconsultation of the panchayat is required and not their consent.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  In the instant case, it is clear from the impugned G.O.  that the
\nGovernment  ignoring  the  vested  right  of  the  appellant\/village panchayat
\nconferred under Section 125(1) of the Act with respect to the ”  public  road”
\nin  question  passed  impugned  government  order  without  even following the
\nprocedure contemplated under Section 125(2) of the Act for taking  appropriate
\nsteps  to  exclude from the operation of the Act any such public road, and had
\nchosen to reclassify the impugned Vandi-patti (Cart-track) poromboke as Natham
\nporomboke and assign the same to the  individuals,  of  course,  resorting  to
\nBoard Standing Order 21 .\n<\/p>\n
        25.   The  question  whether  the Government is entitled to invoke the
\nBoard Standing Order ignoring the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act  came
\nfor  consideration  before  the  Apex  Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh &
\nanother v.  Syed Akbar, 2004 (5) CTC 506, in a matter of  assignment  of  land
\nvested  with  the  Government,  which was acquired for public purpose, but was
\nattempted to be used for other public purpose, viz., for grant of assignments,
\ninvoking the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Order, 90(32), and the  Apex  Court
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“..13.   From  the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions,
\nit follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land  Acquisition  Act,  the  land
\nacquired  vests  in  the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2)
\nthe land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other  public<\/p>\n
purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from
\nall  encumbrances  cannot  be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner
\nmerely on the basis of an executive order.\n<\/p>\n
14.  At the hearing, we specifically asked learned counsel for the  respondent
\nwhether  the  Board’s  Standing  Order  90(32) was issued under any particular
\nstatute, the learned counsel was not able to point out to any provision of law
\nunder which it was issued.  He was not in a position to  show  that  the  said
\norder bears  any  statutory force.  Even otherwise, as per para 32 of the said
\norder, the land acquired, no longer required for the public purpose for  which
\nit  was  acquired, could not be disposed of in favour of any person other than
\nthe citizen of India and that too without the sanction of the Government.   If
\nthe  land  acquired  for the public purpose is specifically relinquished, such
\nland could be disposed of as stated in  the  said  paragraph.    If  the  land
\nrelinquished  is likely to be again required for public purposes, it should be
\nmerely leased out for such term as may be considered desirable in  each  case.
\nIf  the  acquired land was an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, it
\nshould be disposed of inviting for sale  in  public  auction  by  giving  wide
\npublicity in  respect of sale.  If at the time of sale, anybody puts forth his
\nclaim in respect of any field either as an adjacent owner or  as  an  original
\nowner, the sale of that field should be stopped and his claim investigated and
\ndisposed of in the manner specified in sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of Note (2) of
\nthe Board’s  order  90(32).   If it is found that his claim is not proved, the
\nfield should be sold by public auction.  In the case on hand, there is nothing
\non record to show that the part of the acquired land which remained unused was
\nrelinquished by the Government.  A letter of Resident Engineer stated that the
\nunused land was no more required cannot amount to relinquishment of  the  said
\nland by  the  competent  authority.  In order to make a claim under para 32 of
\nthe said Board’s Standing Order in the first place, it was necessary that  the
\ncompetent authority had subsequently relinquished the unused land.  After such
\nrelinquishment  of  the  land,  the land had to be notified for sale in public
\nauction.  If at the time of sale of such  land,  the  original  owner  made  a
\nclaim,  sale  could  be  stopped  and  his  claim  could  be  investigated and
\nthereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner  specified  under  the
\nsaid paragraph.   Added to this, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought
\nabout by G.O.Ms.No.783, dated 9.10.1998 , the  land  for  the  public  purpose
\nshall  be  utilized  for  the same purpose for which it was acquired as far as
\npossible and in case the land is not used for the purpose  for  which  it  was
\nacquired  due  to  any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other public
\npurpose as deemed fit.  It appears this  amendment  was  not  brought  to  the
\nnotice of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Chapter  V  of the Act deals with occupation of khalsa land and right of
\noccupant.  Under Section 54, procedure is prescribed for acquiring  unoccupied
\nland.   This  Section enables a person to submit a petition to Tehsildar if he
\nis desirous of taking unoccupied land.  On such application, the Tehsildar may
\nin accordance with the rules made by the Government give permission on writing
\nfor occupation.  Section 5 4-A indicates the  procedure  in  respect  of  land
\nacquired for  the purpose of public benefit and which is no more required.  It
\nis clear from plain and clear language  of  the  said  Section  that  when  an
\nagricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required, the patta
\nthereof  shall  be  made  in the name of the person or his successor from whom
\nsuch land was  acquired  provided  he  consents  to  refund  the  compensation
\noriginally paid  to him.  This Section does not say that the agricultural land
\nacquired for public benefit is no longer required for the purpose for which it
\nis acquired.  This Section can be attracted only in a case where  agricultural
\nland acquired for public benefit is no longer required not necessarily for the
\nspecific purpose  for  which it was acquired.  Added to this, that the land is
\nno more required is a decision required to be made by the competent authority.
\nAs in the present case, mere letter of Resident Engineer that the unused  land
\nis no  more  required is not enough.  When the land is acquired under the Land
\nAcquisition Act which  is  vested  in  the  State  Government  free  from  all
\nencumbrances,  the  question  of  reconveying  the  land  as  claimed  by  the
\nrespondent could not be accepted in view of the clear position of  law  stated
\nin the  decision  of  this Court aforementioned.  Whether the unused remaining
\nland out of the acquired land  was  sufficient  or  not  for  the  purpose  of
\nconstruction  of Mandal Revenue Office could not be decided by the High Court.
\nIt was for the competent authorities to decide  about  the  same.    The  High
\nCourt, in our view, was not right in saying that the proposal to construct the
\nMandal Revenue  Office  in  the unused land acquired was an after-thought.  No
\nmaterial was placed on record to attribute any mala fides on the part  of  the
\nauthorities or to support the case that the proposal to build a Mandal Revenue
\nOffice was an after-thought.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
        26.   In  view of the ratio enunciated from the decision in Government
\nof Andhra Pradesh & another v.  Syed Akbar, 2004 (5) CTC 506, we do  not  find
\nany  difficulty to answer the legal issue raised in this appeal in negative to
\nthe effect that the Government shall not resort to exercise their powers under
\nthe Board  Standing  Orders  which  have  no  statutory  force,  ignoring  the
\nstatutory  provisions,  viz.,  Section  125(2)  of  the  Act,  which  could be
\nexercised, in our  considered  opinion,  by  following  appropriate  procedure
\ncontemplated under law.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   It  is  trite  law  that the courts jurisdiction to interpret a
\nstatute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous.  It is well known that in a
\ngiven case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the  texture
\nof the  fabric.   It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when
\nthe language of the provision is plain and unambiguous.    It  cannot  add  or
\nsubtract words  to a statute or read something into it which is not there.  It
\ncannot rewrite or recast legislation.  It is also necessary to determine  that
\nthere  exists  a presumption that the legislature has not used any superfluous
\nwords, vide Nasiruddin v.  Sita Ram Agarwal,<\/a>(2003) 2 SCC 577.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  The words employed  in  Section  125(2)  of  the  Act  viz.,  the
\nGovernment  is  empowered  to  exclude  from the operation of the Act any such
\npublic road by way of a notification, cannot be lightly disregarded.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  In the instant case, we are satisfied that the impugned G.O.   is
\nobviously passed ignoring the provisions of Sections 125(1) read with Sections
\n2(28)  and 125(2) of the Act, as no steps have been taken by the Government to
\nissue any notification till date, in a  manner  contemplated  under  law,  and
\ntherefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        In the  result,  the  writ appeal is allowed and the impugned G.O.  as
\nwell as the consequential proceedings, if any, stand quashed.  However, taking
\ninto consideration the reasons that weighed the Government to allot the  lands
\nto  the last grade employees of the Raj Bhavan, we add that the Government may
\nconsider to allot equal extent of land to the  deserving  allottees  from  any
\nalternate site, if   they   are   so   advised.    No  costs.    Consequently,
\nC.M.P.No.10705 of 1998 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index   :       Yes\n\nInternet:       Yes\n\nsasi\n\nTo:\n\n1.  The State of Tamilnadu\nby its Secretary to the\nRevenue Department  \nFort St.George\nChennai  600 009. \n\n2.  The Commissioner of Land \nAdministration, Ezhilagam\nChepauk, Chennai-600 005.  \n\n3.  The District Collector\nKancheepuram.  <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/12\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU W.A.No.977 of 1998 Vengaivasal Village Panchayat by its President .. Appellant -Vs- 1. The State of Tamilnadu by its Secretary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4050,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004"},"wordCount":4050,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004","name":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T13:59:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vengaivasal-village-panchayat-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-22-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vengaivasal Village Panchayat vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}