K. Kaliammal vs The District Collector, The District Revenue Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Tahsildar

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—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.

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.

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.

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, how ever, permitted the Petitioner to seek assignment on payment of market value.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In spite, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. How ever, 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.