High Court · 2025

W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.11.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P. Nos.40212 of 2005 and 18365 of 2008andW.P.M.P. No.43133 of 2005andM.P. No.1 of 2008S. Dennis (Deceased)2. Sanctus Mary3. Aldrin Dennis4. Andrew Dennis5. Alen Dennis ** P2 to P5 are substituted as LRs of Deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2025 in W.M.P. Nos.44721 and 44722 of 2025.…Petitionersin both W.P.svs.1. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by the SecretaryRevenue Department,Fort. St. George,Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Commissioner,Revenue Administration,Disaster Management and Mitigation,Ezhilagam,Chennai – 600 005.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 20083. The District Collector,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil.4. The District Revenue Officer,Nagercoil.5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Padmanabhapuram,Thuckalay P.o.K.K. District.6. The Tahsildar,Vilavancode Tk.Kuzhithurai,K.K. District. ….Respondentsin W.P. No.40212 of 20051. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by the SecretaryRevenue Department,Fort. St. George,Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of LandAdministration,Chepauk,Chennai – 600 005. 3. The Special Commissioner,Revenue AdministrationDisaster Management and Mitigation Department,Ezhilagam,Chennai - 600 005. 4. The District Collector,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 20085. The District Revenue Officer,Nagercoil.6. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Padmanabhapuram,Kanyakumari District.7. The Tahsildar,Vilavancode Tk.Kuzhithurai,Kanyakumari District. ….Respondentsin W.P. No.18365 of 2008#Amended Prayer in W.P. No.40212 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to hand back to the petitioner vacant possession of his land of an extent of 0.10.5 hectares in S. No.296/13 in Ezhudesam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, pursuant to the orders of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai vide proceedings No.G1/32647/05, dated 20.10.2005 or in the alternative direct the respondents to treat the case as one for under land acquisition and pay compensation to the petitioner fro the property as per the prevailing market rate.# Prayer amended as per order dated 12.09.2007 in W.P. M.P. No.1903 of 2007.Prayer in W.P. No.18365 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in R.C. No.G1/3532/2006, dated 09.07.2008 confirming the order of the 5th respondent in R.C. No.54663/05 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008dated 17.03.2006 quash the same and direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on market value for the lands measuring 0.10.5 hectares in S. No.296/13 in Ehudesam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari district. In both W.P.sFor petitioners : Ms. Hema SampathSenior Counselfor Ms.R. MeenalFor respondents : Mr.A.M. AyyaduraiGovt. Advocate COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by way of common order. 2. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the sole petitioner died, hereinafter referred to as original petitioner and the Legal Heirs of the original petitioner were impleaded as petitioners in these writ petitions.3. The original petitioner was assigned a land to an extent of 0.10.5 hectares in Survey No.296/13, situated at Elavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, under Revenue Standing Order 15, by proceedings dated 30.09.1977, on the ground that he was a landless poor agriculturist. Though the assignment 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008was granted in the year 1977, a corrected assignment order was subsequently issued in D.K.No.9/90 dated 09.04.1982. As per the conditions of assignment, he was required to convert the barren land into cultivable land within a period of three years. It is the specific case of the petitioners that within the stipulated period, the land was brought under cultivation. The respondents ranking in W.P. No.18365 of 2008 is taken into account for arraying.4. While so, in the year 2004, due to tsunami, the Government decided to acquire lands in the locality for the purpose of rehabilitation and housing of tsunami victims. In that process, lands in Survey Nos.296/9, 296/10, 296/11, 296/12 and 296/14, including the original petitioner’s assigned land in Survey No.296/13, were taken over. It is the grievance of the petitioners that without making any payment for compensation, their land was taken over. Subsequently, in the year 2005, the 4th respondent in W.P. No.18365 of 2008 initiated proceedings alleging violation of assignment conditions and, based on the recommendation of the 6th respondent, cancelled the assignment by order dated 08.10.2005.5. Aggrieved by the said cancellation, the deceased petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appellate authority, by order dated 20.10.2005, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 20086. Thereafter, the 5th respondent again passed an order dated 17.03.2006, confirming the cancellation. On the other hand, since no order was passed in the subsequent appeal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.40212 of 2005 and this Court, by order dated 15.04.2008 in W.P.M.P. No.500 of 2008, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal, within a stipulated period and the main writ petition viz., W.P. No.40212 of 2005 was kept pending. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed an order confirming the cancellation, which is impugned in writ petition viz., W.P. No.18365 of 2008. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that initially the subject land was assigned to the original petitioner in the year 1977 and subsequently corrected patta issued in the year 1982 vide D.K. No.9/90. She further submitted that the sole condition of assignment was to bring the barren land under cultivation within three years, which was duly complied with by the original petitioner. After a lapse of more than two decades, the respondents have no authority to cancel the assignment. 8. She further argued that the respondents took over the petitioners assigned land along with adjacent lands for rehabilitation of tsunami victims without paying any compensation. She strongly argued that the cancellation could have been made only within the condition period by the original assigning order, after due enquiry and therefore, the said cancellation is merely an 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008afterthought, with an ulterior motive to defeat the petitioners’ claim for compensation. Hence, the impugned cancellation orders both dated 09.07.2008 and 17.03.2006 passed by the 2nd and 5th respondents respectively are liable to be quashed. On the aforesaid score, she prays for allowing of W.P. No.18365 of 2008 and for issuance of appropriate directions in W.P. No.40212 of 2005. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the subject land is classified as Assessed Waste Dry (Government Poromoboke land), assigned subject to strict conditions. Further, on inspection, it revealed that the original petitioner failed to cultivate the land even after 28 years, violating Condition No.5 of the assignment. He argued based on the counter affidavit stating that only after conducting due enquiry, the 5th respondent cancelled the assignment, and the same was confirmed in appeal and now the Legal Heirs of the original petitioner cannot make any claim on the said assignment. Hence, these writ petitions deserve dismissal and prayed for the same. 10. This Court heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the available records. 11. It is not in dispute that the original assignment granted in favour of the sole petitioner, initially in the year 1977 and thereafter corrected patta issued in the year 1982, with a condition to bring the land under cultivation 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008within three years. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that if there was any violation of the assignment condition, action ought to have been initiated within the stipulated period, after following due process. Cancellation of assigned land that too after more than two decades is impermissible in law. During the earlier hearing, this Court had issued directions to the respondents to produce the original assignment order. In response, the respondents stated in their proceedings dated 18.11.2025 that due to efflux of time, the relevant records are not available for production. The same has also been taken note of by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders of cancellation passed by the 2nd and 5th respondents are arbitrary and perverse and the same are liable to be set aside.12. In the result, this Court issues the following directions :- i) W.P. No.18365 of 2008 is allowed, and the impugned cancellation orders, both dated 09.07.2008 and 17.03.2006 passed by the 2nd and 5th respondents are set aside. ii) If the land in S.No.296/13 in Ezhudesam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District is still available and vacant, the respondents shall restore possession to the petitioners.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008 iii) If the land is not available, the respondents shall pay reasonable compensation to the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) In view of the above directions, as the issue is resolved, W.P.No.40212 of 2005 also shall stand disposed of.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.19.11.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/Novsi2To 1. The SecretaryThe State of Tamil NaduRevenue Department,Fort. St. George,Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Commissioner,Revenue Administration,Disaster Management and Mitigation,Ezhilagam,Chennai – 600 005.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005and18365 of 2008M.DHANDAPANI, J.vsi23. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land,Administration,Chepauk,Chennai – 600 005.4. The District Collector,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil.5. The District Revenue Officer,Nagercoil.6. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Padmanabhapuram,Thuckalay P.o.Kanyakumari District.7. The Tahsildar,Vilavancode Tk.Kuzhithurai,Kanyakumari District. W.P. Nos.40212 of 2005 and 18365 of 2008andW.P.M.P. No.43133 of 2005andM.P. No.1 of 200819.11.202510/10