Kamalammal vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R. Balasubramanian, J.—The assignment in favour of the writ Petitioner was on 31.3.1960, The said assignment was sought to be cancelled

by the Tahsildar namely, the fourth Respondent, by issuing a show cause notice dated 23.11.1982. The writ Petitioner submitted her explanation.

The fourth Respondent overruled the objections and ordered cancellation of the assignment. The appeal before the second Respondent; the

revision before the third Respondent; and further revision before the first Respondent were also dismissed. It may be noticed here that the third

Respondent while dismissing the revision petition was inclined to observe that it is open to the writ Petitioner to have the lands assigned to the writ

Petitioner converted into one of lands under lease for her life time. It is the correctness of these orders cancelling the assignment in favour of the

writ Petitioner, that are being questioned in this writ petition.

Heard Mrs. Hema Sampath. learned Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioner and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Government Advocate for the

Respondents.

On three grounds the assignment is sought to be cancelled and they are as follows:

(a) The Petitioner did not disclose that her husband was a serving village Headman while applying for assignment, (b) The lands assigned in survey

No. 101 are classified as patta lands and by mistake the 4th Respondent had assigned, the lands treating the lands as ""tharisu'' (c) Even before the

writ Petitioner submitted her explanation for assignment that is on 12.3.1960, the notice inviting objections in form 1 was published on 2.2.1960

itself, that is even before the application. It may be noticed here that the writ Petitioner''s husband was proceeded against departmentally on

various charges. Charge No. 1 is that using his position as village Headman, he obtained assignment of lands in the name of his wife. Charge No. 3

is that before getting assignment of lands in the name of his wife, he had not taken prior permission. The explanation offered by the writ Petitioner''s

husband to those charges was that there is no provision of law which disables him from getting assignment of the lands in the name of his wife,

while he is a serving village Headman. As far as charge No. 3 is concerned, his explanation was that there was no need to get prior permission for

assignment of lands in the name of his wife. There were four other charges also. The explanation submitted by the writ Petitioner''s husband was

accepted in toto and he was directed to be reinstated in service. This only means that there was no irregularity in the assignment of lands in the

name of the writ Petitioner, when the proceedings against her husband was brought to an end in his favour as stated above.

Even otherwise, though all the authorities have concurrently found against the writ Petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to even

say that the assigning authority did not know that the writ Petitioner''s husband was serving a village Headman at that time. The explanation of the

writ Petitioner is that everyone in the village knows that her husband is a serving village Headman and the assignment was made knowing full well

about that fact. As far as the assignment of the patta land is concerned, it appears as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for

all these years there was no objection from any third parties regarding the assignment of lands to the writ Petitioner. If really the lands assigned to

the writ Petitioner were patta lands, over which the Government has no control, it is needless to state that such assignment will not bind the right,

title and interest of the party, who has a private interest in the lands. Therefore, there is time enough for the aggrieved party to work out his rights

against the writ Petitioner as well as against the Government if his private lands are assigned to the writ Petitioner. Of course, such a remedy would

be available to a third party only if he is within the period of limitation. The third charge against the writ Petitioner is that even before the receipt of

the application, advertisements inviting objections were issued in advance. For this the writ Petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. Under

these circumstances, I am of the opinion that even on facts the cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the writ Petitioner cannot be

sustained.

Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also urged another point of law namely, the assignment having been made as early as

31.3.1960, if at all the authorities have any right to cancel her assignment, it should have been done in any event within a reasonable time from the

date of assignment. In this case the authorities themselves were aware as early as 1978, when the departmental proceedings were initiated against

the writ Petitioner''s husband, that there is some alleged irregularity in the assignment in favour of the writ Petitioner. However, they have chosen to

given the show cause notice only for the first time on 23.11.1992, that is almost 22 years and 8 months after the assignment was lawfully made in

favour of the writ Petitioner. On this the learned Counsel would state that the law of limitation would equally apply to the Government as well. For

this purpose the learned Counsel relies upon two unreported judgments of this Court one dated 21.12.1992 in W.P. No. 4457/84 and the other

dated 31.3.1997 in W.P. No. 6229/88. In both the cases the respective learned single Judge have upheld the argument that for any action against

any citizen the Government also will be bound by the law of limitation and they cannot sleep over the rights and choose any sweet day of their own

to wake up and then proceed against the citizen, by which time the rights of the concerned person would have become crystallised. In those two

judgments, the cancellation of the assignment was quashed by this Court solely on the ground of actions having been taken after an inordinate delay

of 18 or 19 years. Those two judgments apply on all fours to the case on hand as well. In as much as the action against the writ Petitioner towards

the cancellation of the assignment having been initiated for the first time only on 23.11.1982, which assignment was made on 31.3.1960, I see no

justification at all for the Respondents to initiate any action for cancellation of the assignment already made to the writ Petitioner so belatedly and

the law of Limitation would come in the way of the present action taken against the Petitioner and challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, both

on facts and no law the writ Petitioner succeeds and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the orders challenged in this writ petition are

quashed. No costs.