S. Anbalagan vs The Tahsildar, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The District Revenue Officer and The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the third

respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, in Na.Ka.Aa. No. 8/60473/99, dated 27.06.2004, by calling for the records

connected thereto and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the assignment of the lands in the revenue records, admeasuring 2.62

acres comprised in Survey No. 109/3, Kallakurichi Taluk, by passing necessary orders, confirming the assignment and also further direct the

respondents to collect the then market price prevalent at the time of assignment of lands admeasuring 1.23-1/2 acres comprised in Survey No.

108/11 situated in Namachivayapuram Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, in DKT No. 227/80 on 08.09.1970. At the outset, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to abide by the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 27.09.2003 for payment of

market value of the land having an extent of 2.38 acres, however, he stated that the third respondent has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order

that the Survey No. 109/3 had been illegally updated as patta lands in revenue records in the name of Periyanna Gounder, grandfather of the

petitioner herein, without assignment, when the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1980. Adding further, he

pleaded that since he has been in possession of the lands in dispute for many decades, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land

Administration having not mentioned anything about the land in question i.e. S. No. 109/3 in the order dated 27.09.2003, the third

respondent/District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, cannot take away that land from the petitioner, without giving him any notice or holding any

enquiry by giving fair and reasonable opportunity, for the reason that the petitioner is depending on the said land, accordingly, prayed for allowing

the writ petition.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the lands covered in R.S. No. 109/3 was not

at all assigned at any point of time to any of the family members of the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the petitioner deliberately forged the

original assignment order dated 08.09.1970 and illegally inserted the R.S. No. 109/3 as though the said land also has been allotted to the

petitioner. He has also by producing the original assignment order dated 08.09.1970 requested this Court to compare the same with another copy

of the assignment order filed by the petitioner to show that the land in R.S. No. 109/3 was not assigned to the petitioner. While comparing these

two documents, he submitted that the land covered in Survey No. 109/3 was not subject matter of the assignment either to the petitioner''s

grandfather or to the petitioner''s maternal uncle-Palanivel Gounder. Therefore, on that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard both sides.

One Periyanna Gounder S/o Ramasamy Gounder and his family members were assigned a total extent of 13.94 acres of lands in

Namachivayapuram Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. The details of the lands assigned to the petitioners'' family, as mentioned in the

Tahsildar''s DKT order No. 227/1380, dated 08.09.1970, are extracted hereunder:

Sl. No. Name of Assignee R.S. No. Extent (acres)

1 Somasundara Gounder (father of writ 108/2 and 109/1 1.62 and 3.38

petitioner)

2 Periyanna Gounder S/o Ramasamy 108/11 2.38

Gounder

3 Palanivel Gounder S/o Periyanna 109/4 3.62

Gounder

4 Muthayi (mother of writ petitioner) 111/11 and 123/11 0.68 and 2.26

Total 13.94 acres

Serial No. 2 of the above table shows that Periyanna Gounder S/o Ramasamy Gounder was assigned with 2.38 acres in R.S. No. 108/11, and

Serial No. 3 shows that Palanivel Gounder was assigned with 3.62 acres of lands in R.S. No. 109/4, who is the son of Periyanna Gounder.

Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, vide order dated 30.08.1973, had cancelled the assignment order made to

Periyanna Gounder in R.S. No. 108/11 on the ground that the said Periyanna Gounder was not cultivating the land and he was also not residing at

Namachivayapuram Village, Kallakurichi. As against the cancellation order, when review application was filed, the Special Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, in his proceedings dated 27.09.2003, confirmed the cancellation order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, ordering to restore the assigned lands to the legal heirs of Periyanna Gounder--Anbalagan and Thiyagarajan--on payment of present

market value. However, when the legal heirs of Periyanna Gounder refused to pay the land value, the District Revenue Officer, by passing order

dated 27.06.2004, restored the lands to the Government and to that effect, changes also carried out in the revenue records, assessing the said

lands as ''dry waste''. Besides, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, in his letter dated 27.09.2003,

pointed that the land in dispute i.e. R.S. No. 109/3 having an extent of 2.62 acres, was not assigned to the said Periyanna Gounder. Therefore,

learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has rightly stated that the petitioner is wrongly claiming the land in question covered in

R.S. No. 109/3, as this was not there in the original assignment order dated 08.09.1970.

In this context, learned Additional Government Pleader also has produced a original assignment order dated 08.09.1970. While comparing

these two documents, it could be seen that the land covered in Survey No. 109/3 was not at all subject matter of the assignment either to the

petitioner''s grandfather or to the petitioner''s maternal uncle-Palanivel Gounder. That apart, in order to find out whether the land in question viz.

R.S. No. 109/3 was really assigned to the petitioner''s family, when reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce any assignment

order issued by the Government in respect of Survey No. 109/3 in favour of the petitioner, till date no original order of assignment was produced,

even though several adjournments were granted to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when petitioner''s father

was unfortunately murdered in the year 1980, whatever the documents were in possession of the said Periyanna Gounder, the same was not made

available to his legal heirs. In these circumstances, for the reasons mentioned above, I have no other option except to reach a conclusion that the

petitioner was not the assignee of Survey No. 109/3. Hence, the request of the petitioner to direct the third respondent to accept the payment of

the market value of the land covered in Survey No. 109/3 cannot be accepted. Finally, since the petitioner has accepted before this Court to retain

the land covered in Survey No. 108/11 on payment of market value as on the date of the order of the fourth respondent dated 27.09.2003, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner

to approach the third respondent for payment of the market value for the land in Survey No. 108/11 as fixed by the fourth respondent. If any such

request is made by the petitioner, it is left open to the third respondent to consider the same. No Costs.