Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023COMMON JUDGMENTS.S.SUNDAR, J.,(1)The above writ appeals have been preferred as against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2023 dismissing the writ petitions in WP.Nos.16309/2018 and 30309/2014. While, WA.No.3093/2023 is filed by the petitioner in WP.No.16309/2018, WA.No.2744/2023 is filed by the petitioner in WP.No.30309/2014. Both writ petitions were filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.486 dated 30.10.2024.(2)Since the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order, these two writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.(3)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:-(a)The appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 is the President of an Association by name 'Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Association. Similarly, WA.No.2744/2023 is preferred by the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' Association represented by its President by name Mr.T.Dhanapal. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' Association is represented by two different persons who claim to be the Presidents of the same Association.(b)Admittedly, the Association is registered in the year 1968 as Madras Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' Association. The Association has more than 400 members. The main object of the Association is to serve the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen, their families, pensioners, war widows, disabled and destitutes etc. From the sequence of events as reflected from the typed set of papers, originally vast extent of lands were in the possession of ex-servicemen as encroachers. Since the lands which are encroached by them was required for public purpose, the Government instead of assigning the same lands, came forward to allot alternative lands to the encroachers.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023(c)The State Government thereafter allotted an extent of 20 acres of land in S.No.574 [now S.No.574/2] at Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk [now Sholinganallur Taluk], Kanchipuram District vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 pursuant to several representations of the Association and directions by this Court in a few writ petitions. Taking note of the fact that 400 members were enrolled as members of the Association, the allotment of land was meant for giving free house sites to 400 members of the Association by giving assignment to all the members, at the rate of 2.50 cents to 400 members who had been vacated from other lands in their possession as encroachers.(d)In the assignment order, it is mentioned that out of 25.12.0 Hectares, in S.No.574 which are classified as Punjai Tharisu, an extent of 20 acres, the subject matter of assignment, was directed to be changed as 'village natham' by giving exemptions to some of the Government Orders imposing certain restrictions.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023(e)As per the proceedings dated 05.09.2006 vide G.O.Ms.No.570, the Tahsildar was directed to prepare a layout and get approval from CMDA at the cost of Society in favour of whom the assignment was made. Only persons who have no residential house on their own, are eligible for assignment. The individual allottees should produce records to the satisfaction of the District Collector that the allottee was in encroachment by producing B-Memo or otherwise. The assignment order also contemplate verification of the list of 400 beneficiaries whether they are ex-servicemen or their legal heirs.(f)It is stated by the appellants that the Association approached the revenue authorities to give approval to the layout. It is further stated that the Tahsildar also sent a letter on 29.05.2007 to CMDA seeking approval for the layout. The Tahsildar, thereafter sent a letter to the Deputy Director of Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board asking to confirm the credentials of 400 members of the Association who are eligible. It is contended by the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 that the previous President by name Mr.Dhanapal, the appellant in WA.No.2744/2023 and the then Secretary of the Association by name Mr.Baskaran have colluded and created bogus membership list and submitted to the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board. Even though it is admitted that the list was confirmed by the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board vide letter dated 18.02.2008, it is stated by the appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 that the list contains names of few strangers who are not eligible. Therefore, the dispute between the two Associations is only with regard to the list of eligible members. To specify, the two Associations have given different lists but the omission or addition in the two lists is by including or excluding a few members.(g)Since the dispute between the two Associations was visible, by the impugned Government Order, the allotment of 20 acres of land in favour of the Association vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 was cancelled. Challenging the same, the writ petitions in 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023WP.Nos.13301/2012, 30309/2014 and 16309/2018 were filed by the Associations. While WP.No.13301/2012 is filed by one Mr.R.Baskaran, as Secretary representing the Association, the other two writ petitions were filed by the rival Presidents for the same relief.(h)In WP.No.16309/2018, the petitioner who is the appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 challenged the order of 1st respondent mainly on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the Association and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Even in the affidavit, it is projected by the appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 that some fraudulent activities was committed by some individuals by name Dhanapal and Baskaran without the knowledge of the Association and the irregularities and fraud committed by such individuals cannot be a reason to cancel the assignment which was in favour of about 400 members of registered Association. Even though there is a reference to some Sale Agreements and other 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023documents created by some of the persons claiming to be the office bearers of the Association, while the appellant in WA.No.3093/2023 admitted such transactions and blamed some of the erstwhile office bearers of the Association, the appellant in WA.No.2744/2023 has stated that those transactions are to crystallize the rights of members of Association. Both the appellants have raised common grounds and contended that the land assigned in favour of the Association was re-classified as Natham and the CMDA and the Local Panchayat have also taken steps to collect the Development charges. Since possession of the land was also handed over to the Association and the Association had obtained electricity service connection for the purpose of forming the layout, the appellants challenged the order of cancellation. In both the writ petitions, the findings of the 1st respondent in the impugned order that there are violations of conditions of assignment, are specifically challenged on specific grounds.12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023(i)A counter affidavit was filed by the contesting respondents projecting the position that the list of beneficiaries could not be finalized on account of rival claims. Relying upon the Report of the Tahsildar dated 13.12.2023 regarding violations of conditions that were found in the original allotment order namely, G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006, the respondents contended that no enquiry need to be conducted. Further, it is stated that the President of the Association has entered into 350 unauthorised and illegal Sale Agreements with the list of unapproved beneficiaries by getting Rs.5,000/- from each of such member and hence, no further enquiry is required. The respondents further contended that the list of beneficiaries could not even be verified by the Deputy Director of Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, Kanchipuram Division. Referring to the original allotment, it is contended that the list of beneficiaries should be perused and recommended by the Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, and not by the Assistant 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Director of Army Welfare Board as contended by the writ petitioners. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the beneficiaries recommended by the Association have not submitted any proof for their possession and enjoyment of land in S.No.602/3A, Sholinganallur Village. Referring to the illegal and unauthorised Sale Agreements, it is contended by the respondents that the order impugned is perfectly valid and the writ petitioners cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice since the facts are not in issue.(j)A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioner in WP.No.13309/2012 denying the averments in the counter affidavit. An additional counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent referring to the requests from various Departments for public purposes. Pointing out that there is much scarcity of lands within the District to cater to the needs of Government Departments, it is contended that the impugned order cannot be assailed as the decision of the Government was really in public interest.14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023(k)During the pendency of the writ petitions, vide order dated 31.01.2019, this Court requested the learned Advocate General to get a certified copy of the list of members of appellant Association as on the date of the Government Order in question. (l)The Director General, Re-Settlement Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi, was impleaded as 12th respondent in the writ petition. The 12th respondent, in his affidavit filed in the writ petition, has categorically stated that the writ petitioner Association has not been registered with the Ministry of Defence. They also referred to the names of five Associations which are registered. The 12th respondent in unequivocal terms stated in the affidavit that the 12th respondent does not have any data or particulars of the appellant Association.(m)The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions after a lengthy discussion on legal principles. The learned Judge has acknowledged the fact that 20 acres of land was allotted for the benefit of 400 members of the Association who are Ex-15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Servicemen. Accepting the case of the respondents that several agreements have been executed fraudulently in the year 2012, the learned Single Judge justified the contentions of the respondents that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the Government to cancel the assignment and the decision to cancel the assignment was purely in public interest since the Government is in dire need of lands for implementation of various projects of several Departments of the Government. The learned Single Judge agreed in principle the legal position that the Governmental action should satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest and that Court would strike down the Governmental action as invalid in case the order does not satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest. Learned Single Judge, while referring to the pleadings, observed that the internal dispute between the office bearers of the Associates are visible. Referring to the fact that two writ petitions are filed by the same Association through different set of office bearers, the learned Judge noted that the internal dispute between 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023the office bearers and members exist for a long time. Referring to some of the conditions relating to the eligibility of persons to get allotment of 2.5 cents of land as per the original order vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006, justified the findings of the authorities that it is difficult to ascertain eligible members. The learned Judge has recorded a finding that the claim of writ petitioners that they were in occupation of the subject property, is false. This finding is inappropriate as it is not the case of the Association that the members of the Association are in physical possession of the property. It is admitted that the property is lying vacant. However, possession was handed over to the Association by the Government. Referring to the fact that there was no construction of house or any other building in the entire extent of 20 acres allotted in the year 2006, the learned Judge observed that the members of the Association are not eligible as per the conditions stipulated since they were not in occupation of the subject land. Since the genuineness of the list of members was not 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023endorsed by the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, the learned Judge observed that beyond the violations committed by the Association, the assignments became impossible for the reason that the list of beneficiaries cannot be ascertained. The the learned Judge was more particular about the value of property as on the date of assignment and the development that had taken place over a period of years to hold that the decision of the Government to utilise the land for the benefit of public at large is justified. The learned Judge also referred to a list of public Departments who have demanded lands for public purposes and observed that such valuable lands which are originally assigned in favour of the Association are really required to cater to the needs of Government Departments. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Judge further directed the respondents to evict the encroachments if any found in the subject land, fence the property and utilise the same for public purpose.18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023FINDINGS:-(4)The learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellant Association have referred to several communications before and after the assignment. The fact that the impugned order was passed without issuing a show cause notice is admitted. No enquiry was conducted on the basis of adverse materials collected or relied upon by the 1st respondent before cancelling the assignment. The facts that are recorded in the impugned order are specifically denied. By the assignment, the Governing transferred the rights in favour of the Association which is meant to be distributed to the eligible members who are originally displaced from some other land. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.486 dated 30.10.2014 is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside on the short ground.(5)From the records that are made available to us by the appellant Association as well as by the respondents, this Court is able to see that several Ex-Servicemen were found to be in encroachment of land in S.No.602/3 measuring an extent of 521.76 acres. Even in the year 1987, 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023a proposal was submitted for allotment of one acre of land to each of Ex-Servicemen who was found to be in encroachment. The Madras Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' Association was registered with an object to work for the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen, their families, pensioners, disabled, destitutes and war widows of the entire State including the Madras city. One of the objects is to represent to the Government, the needs of Ex-Servicemen and to provide all possible assistance to the pensioners and the families of Ex-Servicemen. The object of the Association was amended later. The Association made several representations for allotment of the entire extent of about 521.76 acres in S.No.602/3 at Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. In his Report dated 28.01.1998 to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, the District Revenue Officer found that an extent of 230 acres from and out of total extent of 521.76 acres of Punjai Barren land comprised in S.No.602/3, Sholinganallur Village, was in possession of Ex-Servicemen. From the letter, the District Revenue Officer refers to an Agreement that was entered into with the 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023District Collector on 10.10.1994 regarding handing over possession of 50 cents of land to each member of the Association.(6)Several representations of the Association were also referred to. A Plan was submitted demarking the area occupied/encroached by the ex-Servicemen. Vide Proceedings dated 01.06.2000, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has submitted his recommendations to the Revenue Secretary on the petition filed by the Association in the following lines: ''2).....nkw;go fpuhkj;jpy; 602-3V3 gFjp epyj;jpy; vy;fhl; epWtdj;jpw;F epyj;jpy; Kd;EiHt[ mDkjp mspj;J murhiz epiy vz;/1294 tutha;j;Jiw ehs; 13/11/92?y; mDkjp mspj;jij vjph;;j;J nkw;go r';fj;jpdh; cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F xd;iw bjhLj;J jilahizia bgw;wdh;/ ,jw;F Kd; 1987?y; mth;fs; mspj;Js;s xg;gil nfhUk; kD kPJ rpwg;g[ Mizah; kw;Wk; epy eph;thfj;Jiw Mizah; K:d;W khjfhyj;jpw;Fs; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;f cah;ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpl;lJ/ ,jd; nghpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l r';fj;jpdiu neh;Kfkhf miHj;J tprhhpj;J Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdw;F jyh xU Vf;fh; epyk; nrhHp';fey;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpw;F mUfpy; tptrhak; bra;tjw;F rj;jpa TWfs; cs;sdth vd;W khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gl;lhh;/ ,jw;fpilapy;. nkw;go r';fj;jpdh; vy;fhl; epWtdj;jpw;F tH';fg;gl;l epyj;jpd; kPJ bjhLf;fg;gl;l tHf;fpid 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023jpUg;gp bgw;Wf;bfhs;s Vjthf 10/10/94 vy; Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdUf;Fk; Kd;dhs; br';fy;gl;L vk;/$p/Mh;/ khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;Fk; ,ilapy; Xh; cld;gof;if Vw;gl;lij mLj;J. Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdh; jyh 50 brd;l; epyj;ij mth;fs; trjpfSf;nfw;g gad;gLj;jpf;bfhs;s 230 Vf;fh; epyj;ij xg;gil bgw xg;g[f;bfhz;ldh;/ jw;bghGJ xg;gil nfhUk; kDjhuh;fs; midtUk; Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdiu nrh;e;jth;fs;/ ,th;fs; ,e;epyj;jpid tptrhaj;jpw;fhf nfhhp tUfpd;wdh;/ mth;fSf;F 50 brd;l; epyk; tH';f Xh; cld;gof;ifia Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sdh;/ nkYk; gpu!;jhg g[yk; nrhHp';fey;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; ,Ue;jhYk; 1987?,y; ,Ue;nj Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdh;f;F xg;gil tH';Fk; Ma;t[ ghprPyidapy; ,Ue;jjhy;. ,jid cah;kl;lf;FGtpy; itj;J Kot[ vLf;f njitapy;iy vd;W fUjg;gLfpwJ/3)nkYk; jw;nghija epytug;go. Murhiz vz;/659 tUtha;j;Jiw ehs; 11/7/97y; brd;id efiu Rw;wpa[s;s kjpg;g[s;s epy';fis jdpahh; ek;gf';fs; kw;Wk; epWtd';fSf;F Jz;L Jz;lhf tH';FtJ rhpapy;iy vd;gjhy;. epWtd';fSf;Fk; muR JiwfSf;Fk; njitg;gLk;bghGJ ,e;epy';fis mspf;Fk; bghUl;Lk;. Mitfis nkk;gLj;Jk; bghUl;Lk; njitahd ghpe;Jiufis bra;a rpwg;g[ Mizah; kw;Wk; epy eph;thf Mizah; jiyikapy; FG xd;W Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/4),e;j epfH;tpy; cs;s epy';fs; jdpah;fs; 1987 Kjy; Mf;fpukpg;g[ bra;J gaph; bra;J tUfpd;wdh;/ nkw;go murhizapy; cs;s bra;tJ rk;ke;jkhd Fwpg;g[iufSf;F 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023bghUe;jf;Toanj vd;W bjhpfpwJ/ ,e;epfH;tpy;. jdpah;fs; 30 Mz;LfSf;F nkyhf. nkw;go epy';fis mDgtpj;Jf; bfhz;L bjhlh;e;J. mth;fsJ xg;gil nfhhpf;ifia 13 tUl';fshf typa[Wj;jp tUfpd;wdh;/ ,th;fs; Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdh; vd;gjhy;. ,J nghd;W Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdh; ehl;Lf;fhf Mw;wpa gzpf;fhf ghuhl;Lk;goahf bgUk;ghyhd epyj;jpid ,jw;F Kd;dhs; xnu ,lj;jpy; muR tH';fpaJ fpilahJ vd bjhpfpwJ vd;gjhYk;. ,th;fSf;F ,e;j epyj;jpid tH';FtJ kpft[k; Xh; cd;djkhd eyd;fhg;g[ brayhFk;/ vdnt. 13 tUl';fshf Kd;dhs; ,uhQqtj;jpdh; ,e;j epyj;jpid bgw vLj;Jf; bfhz;l Kaw;rpfSf;Fk;. ehl;Lf;fhf mth;fs; Mw;wpa gzpapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk; gpujpgydhf mth;fSf;F jyh 50 brd;l; epyk; tPjk; 400 egh;fSf;Fk; mth;fsJ brhirl;of;Fk; epyk; tH';fyhk; vd;W fUjp ,jid bfhs;if mstpy; Vw;Wf;bfhs;s VJthf cj;jputpl muRf;F ghpe;Jiu bra;J mDg;g[fpnwd;/ ,j;Jld; fh";rpg[uk; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyhplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l foj efy;fisa[k; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/”(7)Later, the Association filed two writ petitions in WP.Nos.20509 and 21301/1992. In WP.No.20509/1992, the Association challenged the order vide G.O.Ms.No.1294 dated 13.11.1992. In WP.No.21301/1992, the Association challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/202316.12.1992 permitting Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu [ELCOT] entering the land in S.No.602. Vide G.O.Ms.No.1294 dated 13.11.1992, impugned in the second writ petition, the Government allotted the land measuring an extent of about 300 acres in S.No.602/3. This Court, vide order dated 11.04.2001, passed the following order:''9.I am of the view that the State should reconsider the claims of the petitioner in the matter of assignment of lands more sympathetically with that view while setting aside the order impugned in WP.No.21301/1992, the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration in the light of the various observations made above to pass fresh orders expeditiously.''(8)Thereafter, the Association represented by Mr.S.Bhaskaran, filed a writ petition in WP.No.37892/2004 to consider the grievance of the Association regarding assignment of land in their occupation. A direction was issued to the Special Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department to consider the representation of the Association for assignment of land in their occupation in terms of the earlier order dated 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/202311.04.2001 as well as the Government Orders are in vogue within a time frame.(9)Thus, the request of the members of the Association to allot each one, an extent of one acre was found not feasible. The respondents decided to allot an extent of half-an-acre in favour of persons who are in encroachment of Government lands, taking into consideration the fact that the beneficiaries namely the members of Association were in service in army and are eligible on account of their enjoyment for a long time. It is only the Madras Association that was later amended as Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners' Association with effect from 11.09.2004. Even before the allotment of land in favour of the Association by G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006, the Association was constrained to file another writ petition on knowing that the respondents are likely to pass orders in favour of third parties for assignment in the same survey field, namely, S.No.602/3A. WP.No.14534/2005 was filed by the Association for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from allotting any land in S.F.No.429 to 432 at Pallikaranai Village and 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023SF.No.602/3 in Sholinganallur Village to any third parties without considering the grievance of the Association as requested by them in several of their representations. Therefore, it is seen from records that after a prolonged efforts by the Association for assignment of land in their possession for agricultural purposes approximately at the rate of one acre for the individual, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 assigning an extent of 20 acres of land in a different survey number, i.e., S.No.574 for allotment of free house sites in favour of 400 members of Association at the rate of 2.50 cents to each one of them. After giving exemptions to several other Government Orders, prohibiting or restricting assignment of land for different kinds of beneficiaries, the assignment in favour of Association was made subject to certain conditions. Following are the conditions:-(a)The Tahsildar, Tambaram should prepare a layout in respect of lands assigned in favour of Association and he should get approval from CMDA at the cost of Association.(b)The members of Association who do not own any land or house 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023site before 1987 alone are eligible for assignment.(c)Individual house site patta will be given only in favour of members who produce B-Memo or any document to the satisfaction of the District Collector showing their encroachment before 1987.(d)The particulars of each member of the Association in the prescribed format for assignment, should be submitted for scrutiny.(e)The genuineness of the list of 400 members submitted by the Association should be scrutinized by the Deputy Director, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, Kanchipuram District to find out whether the applications are submitted by Ex-Servicemen or their heirs.(f)Individual members should construct houses within two years from the date of issuance of house site patta.(g)The constructions of individual houses should be as far as 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023possible, uniform.(h)For no reason, the assignee should sell or transfer the house sites in favour of others even though the house site can be mortgaged for construction of building. In case this condition is violated, the Government can resume the land without any compensation for the site or building.(i)There shall be no sale or transfer or mortgage for a period of 30 years except such mortgage is required for construction of building or for development or for other bona fide purposes. This specific condition will be enforced by registering the same before the Registrar's office as an encumbrance. A specific direction was issued to the Commissioner, Land Administration and the District Collector to take necessary steps to implement assignment as per the Government Order.(10)After the assignment, it appears that dispute has arisen between two rival groups in relation to the administration of the Association. There are civil disputes which are still pending before the Civil Court. Some of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023the members of the Association have also submitted representations to take action against the office bearers of the Association for taking steps to get allotment in favour of third parties who are not even members entitled to get allotment. Similarly, after assignment, the Tahsildar also undertaken subdivision and directed the change of classification of assgined lands as ''natham'' and approached CMDA for sanction of approval for plot layout. The Tahsildar, Tambaram, forwarded the list submitted by the Association to Assistant Director, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board for the purpose of verification, whether the 400 members found in the list, are Ex-Servicemen or their heirs. The list was verified and confirmed by the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, Kanchipuram District by proceedings dated 18.02.2008. It is seen that the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, Kanchipuram District for this purpose, verified the service particulars, Discharge Certificate, Identity Card in every case. Member Secretary, CMDA, by proceedings dated 27.05.2009 while scrutinising the layout plan, requested the Tahsildar to remit a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- towards 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023development charges and a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards layout preparation charges. On 30.05.2009, the amounts were remitted by Tahsildar as acknowledged by CMDA.(11)This Court has perused the layout prepared and revised by CMDA showing the proposed road and the area reserved for public purpose. The Member Secretary, by his proceedings dated 09.06.2009, requested the Executive Officer of Sholiganallur Town Panchayat to advise the Tahsildar/applicant to hand over the proposed roads and parks by a registered Gift Deed. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of Sholinganallur Town Panchayat has addressed a letter dated 23.11.2009 for handing over the portion of the layout which are reserved for road and open space and to remit a sum of Rs.2,31,40,000/- for the purpose of formation of roads, drainage and to install about 13,500 street lights. There were various other communications in the meanwhile between the Executive Officer of Local Body and the office bearers of Association on several issues. It is in 2011, the Association represented by Mr.R.S.Baskkaran, executed a Deed of Agreement of allotment on 16.06.2011, allotting house sites to 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023individual persons. In this Agreement, the Association has undertaken to execute Deed of Assignment or transfer and convey title in respect of property in favour of the purchaser on fulfillment of all the conditions imposed by the Government as and when it is required by the individual allottee.(12)It is pertinent to mention that from 2006, the date of Allotment till the allotment was cancelled vide the order impugned in the writ petitions, there is no other communication whispering about any violation by any of the respondents even though there are reference to the internal fight or showing serious dispute between the rival factions fighting for positions to lead the Association in the matter of assignment.(13)Quite surprisingly, the District Collector, ignoring the terms and conditions of allotment, recommended for cancellation of assignment only on the ground that the list of beneficiaries cannot be identified in view of the rival claim to the office of the Association and the cost of the land has gone high in the meanwhile pointing out further that the land which is the subject matter of Association, is very much required for 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023implementing various schemes of Government or to cater to the need of several Government Departments who have made request for allotment based on the recommendation of the District Collector and the complaint lodged by one of the members of the Association about the allotment of house sites in favour of several individuals who are not eligible. The reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petitions are as follows:i.As per the conditions of Assignment, the Tahsildar should prepare the layout and get it approved at the cost of members of the Association. Only persons who do not have any house site before 1987 are eligible. There is also a condition that the assignment should be only in favour of Ex-Servicemen or pensioners who do not own any house site before 1987. There will be no one who can be assigned as per the terms and conditions. Therefore, it is impossible to finalize the list of beneficiaries.ii.As pointed out above, there will be no one to qualify for 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023allotment in compliance of conditions No.1 to 5. Conditions No.6 to 9 are normally imposed only at the time of issuing orders of allotment in favour of individuals. Even before allotment/assignment in favour of individuals, the Association has executed registered Agreements receiving money from individual beneficiaries. This only shows that the Association is acting against the interest of everyone to enable the office bearers to make money. In the said circumstances, value of public lands cannot be allowed to be exploited by individuals for personal gain. Therefore, the Government has decided to accept the recommendation of the District Collector of Kancheepuram to cancel the assignment which was originally done by G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006.iii.The Government also can put an end to several litigations and prevent involving themselves in unnecessary litigations by cancelling assignment. This will only prevent public fraud.iv.Therefore, for the reason that the terms and conditions of the 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023assignment had been violated by the Association and list of beneficiaries cannot be identified in reality, the cancellation of assignment is required in public interest as recommended by the District Collector.(14)First of all, this Court is unable to appreciate or countenance the grounds on which the assignment was cancelled. It is admitted that as per the order of assignment, the Tahsildar should prepare the layout plan and get the plan approved by CMDA at the cost of Association. Even though a layout plan was prepared and the Association had paid the initial amount as required by the Local Body, the layout as such, is yet to be approved as the Local Body has demanded a huge sum of Rs.2 Crores and odd for the purpose of laying roads and for providing street lights. The Association is expected to act on behalf of the members. Without finding their names in the list of beneficiaries it is difficult to mobilise funds from the members of the Association to get layout approval. The condition of assignment was not violated by the Association. Similarly, the allotment of house site in favour of individual member is yet to be 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023made. This can be done only by considering the eligibility as per the terms and conditions of allotment in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. Without completing the process as required by the Revenue Department, the failure on the part of the Revenue Department to do the needful has now been cited as a reason for cancelling the assignment. It is only after the other formalities, individual applications will be processed. Even though there are some discrepancies in the two lists submitted by the rival factions, there is no dispute that most of the names are common in both the lists. This could be sorted out by more than one method. There is dispute among the individuals claiming administration control over the Association. Since the assignment was intended to benefit 400 Ex-Servicemen who are the persons identified as eligible, the dispute in the Association which was constituted for the purpose of doing good to the members, cannot be a reason to deny the benefit of assignment to its members who were displaced from their holdings in respect of a larger extent.(15)The other reasons assigned by the Government are unsustainable in law. 35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023More than 500 acres of land in different survey field was in possession and enjoyment of Ex-Servicemen who are found to be in encroachment even in 1987. Even though the Ex-Servicemen who were in enjoyment of land claimed assignment in respect of an extent of one acre per member from 1987, there was recommendation for allotment of 50 cents each to about 400 persons earlier. However, the Government has come forward to assign only an extent of 2.50 cents in the year 2006 vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. Even this lesser benefit is sought to be taken away by the impugned order. The value of the land as on date and the fact that the land is required for other public purpose, cannot be good reasons for cancellation of assignment.(16)As pointed out earlier, the Government cannot take two different stand as regards assignment or eligibility of individuals. It is the case of the few members of the Association that the allotment of 20 acres of land was intended to benefit all retired Ex-Servicemen who were in enjoyment of the land with the hope of getting assignment of one acre of land each in recognition of their service. Even though the request was under 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023consideration, the assignment was given only for an extent of 2.5 cents for each member. By the order impugned in the writ petitions, even this 2.5 cents of plot which is earmarked for 400 Ex-Servicemen is sought to be cancelled for no valid reason. The Government has made a solemn promise to the members of the Association for allotment of 2.5 cents to each of 400 members of the Association on the basis of previous recommendations. It is because of this promise, the individuals who were in the occupation or encroachment of a larger area upto one acre, were forced to vacate under the pretext of using the lands for other public purpose. Therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel can be applied in this case to grant the relief to the members of the Association. On the admitted facts, the members of the Association who are eligible as per the criteria prescribed in the Government Order have a legitimate expectation and the order impugned in the writ petitions, cannot even stand the test of reasonableness or fairness.(17)This Court finds that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023whole facts right from 1987 or even earlier, which culminated in the order of assignment. When a benefit is conferred on a group of persons, it is not wise to deprive the right of individuals flow from the original assignment by citing the conduct of few individuals who are fighting for taking control of the Association. It is not as if the eligible members have no independent right. The members may or may not be interested in the object of those individuals who are fighting their position to represent the Association. Since the real beneficiaries are affected, this Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the common order dated 04.09.2023 is liable to be set aside.(18)Before this Court, relevant records were produced to show that the land which is earmarked for assignment was classified as 'punjai tharisu' , i.e, 'Dry land without cultivation'. The classification of the land as Government Poramboke is found in the revenue records before and after Settlement. Even during UDR, the classification of the land continues. (19)After hearing the arguments, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 13th respondent in WA.No.3093/2023 and 5th respondent 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023in WA.No.2744/2023 has made his submissions only on the basis of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited known as CMRL is impleaded in the course of proceedings as the Government has also looking forwarded for some lands to CMRL for the purpose of providing land for an yard for storing materials, vehicles and to provide infrastructure for them while implementing their project in Sholinganallur. The Government has vast extent of lands in their possession even now apart from the 20 acres. It is admitted that substantial land is occupied by CMDA for their purpose. Therefore, this Court is of the view that CMRL is not a necessary or proper party in this litigation. Even if additional lands are required by CMRL, the same can be provided by revenue without disturbing the lands assigned which is meant for a specified class of individuals.(20)In the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the land which was assigned in favour of the Association was in fact, classified as forest and therefore, the assignment itself is invalid. Since the representation came from learned Additional Advocate 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023General, this Court impleaded the District Forest Officer, Chennai Forest Division as 14th respondent in WA.No.3093/2023.(21)Learned Additional Advocate General produced before this Court, the Survey and Re-Settlement Register pertaining to the Sholinganallur Village in Chengalpet District. The land in S.No.574 was classified as Government Punjai. The classification of land as Government Punjai shows that it is a cultivable land. Even the land is not found in the holding of anyone except the Government. In the remarks column, there is a reference to Perumbakkam Reserve Forest. However, it was suggested to see the entry in Rs.No.723. Similarly, the classification of land as per 'A' Register prepared after UDR in respect of S.No.574, indicates that the land is classified as Government Poramboke. In the 12th Column, there is a reference to Perumbakkam Reserve Forest. Quite interestingly, no document is produced to suggest that the land assigned had been declared as forest by Notification. This Court has repeatedly held that entry in Column No.12 in 'A' Registers would not refer to the whole extent and the same may indicate only the topographical marks that 40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023are drawn to detail the existence of things in Village map. For example, there will be reference to existence of cart track or temple or a lamp post or even a footpathway in village map by showing topographical marks. Even in respect of vast extent of lands of more than 30 or 40 acres, the existence of cart track across the land or touching small field in the entire survey field would be indicated in the 12th column to show the existence of pathway in the larger extent of land. Similarly, existence of temple will be indicated by referring to the temple in Col.No.12. The entry in column No.12 does not indicate the ownership or character or classification of the entire land in view of the instructions in survey manual. The existence of temple or cart track which are detailed in village maps by using topographical marks cannot be taken as referring to classification of land. Therefore, this Court is not impressed by the argument of learned Additional Advocate General showing a lone document namely the extract of 'A' Register where there is reference to the existence of reserve forest in the 12th column.(22)The request for assignment of land was there for a long time. The 41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Revenue Department has assigned the land which was classified as Government poramboke and cultivable land [g[";ir jhpR]. After assignment, the lands assigned has been sub-divided and classified as Natham indicating that the land is specifically converted as residential colony. The Revenue Department now produce extracts of 'A' Register showing some entries, the authenticity of which is disputed and the Forest Department has not produced before this Court, any other document. They have to show the classification as projected by them on the basis of old revenue records, or any notification under any statute. It is pertinent to mention that the total extent of S.No.574 is 24.11.0 Hectares equivalent to 60 acres. May be a portion of land is earmarked as forest. Having assigned the land and reclassified the land as Natham, the Revenue Department or the Government is estopped from setting up a case without substantial documents to prove the ownership of land by Forest Department.(23)Even earlier, the 3rd respondent filed a Status Report indicating that the subject land in S.No.574 is located adjacent to Semmancherry canal 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023which connects Arasankazhani with Pallikaranai marsh land. Further, it is stated that the above land is lying around four to five feet down from the ground level. It is stated that the land received surplus rain water from surrounding villages during rainy season and draining of rain water takes three to four months and hence, the entire land in S.No.574, is submerged and not suitable for dwelling. It is further contended that the land exist as swamp or marsh land. This Court pointed out that there is no classification of land as marsh land. Even the Collector and the District Revenue Officer of Chennai District, in the said Status Report claimed that the classification of land as Perumbakkam Odukkappatta Kaadu was only during UDR Settlement which held in 1985. Therefore, the contention that the land assigned in favour of Association is a Reserve Forest, cannot be sustained.(24)Similarly, the contention that the land is classified as marsh land indicating that it is situated in the natural water path, cannot be countenanced and this Court finds that the submissions have come as an after-thought after this Court heard the matter elaborately.43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023(25)Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to revisit the order of assignment vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 for the reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petitions.(26)However, this Court, from the records, is of the view that a confusion is created by some of the office bearers of the Assocation who started distribution of lands by agreements even before the list of beneficiaries is verified and scrutinized by the Deputy Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board or any body which is empowered to collect records to verify whether the members are in possession of the lands in 1987 as encroachers and whether the person is eligible to get house site patta as a bona fide and genuine member of Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners Association or the legal heirs of the members of the Association.(27)When the writ petition was pending, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 23.08.2022, after taking note of the earlier order dated 25.10.2019, passed the following order:''2.Pursuant to the above order, the 11th and 12th 44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023respondents submitted a verified list of Navy Ex-servicemen and Air Force Ex-servicemen containing the names of 15 and 136 personnels respectively. This was recorded by this Court while passing an order on 11.04.2022. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 11 th and 12 th respondents sought for sometime to produce the verified list of Ex-servicemen belonging to Army. At that stage, the matter was adjourned and it was taken up for hearing today. 3.On hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions, it is seen that there is a serious dispute with regard to the list of members and the petitioner in W.P.No.16309 of 2018 makes a serious allegation that the list that was produced by the petitioner in W.P.No.30309 of 2014 is a bogus list. The further complaint made by the petitioner in W.P.No.16309 of 2018, is that the 11 th and 12 th respondents while verifying and submitting a list of Ex-servicemen belonging to Navy and Air force, did not take into consideration the list that was furnished by the petitioner in that writ petition. Ultimately, the learned counsel wants the concerned authorities to verify the list given by the petitioner in 45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023both the writ petitions and come up with a final list of ex-servicemen belonging to Army, Navy and Air force.4.Before testing the legality of G.O.Ms.No.486, dated 30.10.2014, this Court must first confirm the genuine list of members, who will be entitled for the allotment. 5.In view of the above, this Court issues the following directions to the 11th and 12th respondents :(a) The 11th and 12th respondents are directed to verify the members list submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.16309 of 2018 and prepare a final genuine list of members, who are Ex-servicemen belonging to Navy and Air force. While preparing this list, the 11th and 12th respondents shall also take into consideration the earlier verified list that was submitted based on the list of members submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.30309 of 2014 and a consolidated list of genuine members, who are Ex-servicemen shall be submitted. (b) Insofar as preparation of the verified list of Ex-servicemen belonging to Army is concerned, the 11th and 12th respondents shall take into consideration the 46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023list of members submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.30309 of 2014 as well as the list of members submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.16309 of 2018 and prepare a final list of genuine members under the category of Ex-servicemen belonging to Army. Once this Court receives the final list of Ex-servicemen belonging to Army, Navy and Air force from the 11th and 12th respondents prepared, by taking into consideration the list of members given by both the petitioners, the final verified list can be taken to be the genuine members list belonging to all the three forces. With this process, the dispute with regard to the members, who are entitled for the allotment can be effectively resolved. (c) While preparing the above list, the 11th and 12th respondents shall ensure that the final list of Ex-servicemen belonging to all the three forces satisfy the following conditions: 1/1987?,y; Kd; brhe;j epynkh-tPl;L kidnah ,y;yhj r';f cWg;gpdh;fs; kl;Lnk xg;gil bgw jFjp gilj;jth; Mthh;2/nkw;go r';fj;jhy; rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLk; r';f cWg;gpdh;fs; 400 ngUk;. Kd;dhs; gil tPuh;fs;jhdh my;yJ mth;fsJ thhpRjhuh;fs;jhdh vd;gij xg;gil eltof;iffs; bjhlUk; Kd;ghf. 47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Kd;dhs; giltPuh; eyj;Jiwapd; Jiz ,af;Feh;. fh";rpg[uk; kz;lyk; mYtyfj;jpd; K:yk; rhp ghh;j;Jf; bfhs;sntz;Lk;/” 6.Once the above process is completed, this Court will next go into the legality of the Government Order that has been put to challenge in these writ petitions.” (28)Unfortunately, none of the learned counsels appearing for the parties has produced before this Court any list approved by respondents 11 and 12. The order of assignment certainly refers to the members of Association who are eligible. It is not by anyone claiming to be the member of Association can get the assignment or house site as per the original order of assignment vide G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. The dispute among office bearers claiming two different lists to be genuine, shows that there is something fundamentally wrong. While considering the order of assignment, it is seen that the assignment is meant for those 400 persons who are found to be in encroachment of lands for more extent of land for agricultural purposes. Since the land which was in the enjoyment of those members, were taken for some other public purpose, 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023the individual members were promised to get allotment of lesser extent originally and thereafter, only a small piece of 2.50 cents. This Court, having regard to the object is determined to see that the allotment is made only in favour of eligible persons who are found entitled to by virtue of their possession previously held by them in the same village but in different survey number. It is only for the purpose of the listing out/identifying the persons who are really eligible under the original order of assignment, this Court propose to issue further directions after hearing the parties.(29)Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2023 is set aside. The writ petitions in WP.Nos.30309/2014 & 16309/2018 are allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition vide G.O.Ms.No.486 dated 30.10.2014 is quashed.(30)Post this matter after two weeks from today for the official respondents and the members of the Association to formulate a 49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023scheme fixing criterias to identify the real beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 and to ensure that no third parties who are not eligible otherwise get any assignment. The eligible members may be asked to tentatively deposit a specific amount in an interest bearing account in the name of Association to meet the development charges required by statute.(31)The District Collector and the Land Commissioner may also produce revenue records which would confirm the list of members who were in enjoyment of Government lands but were displaced on account of the land being utilised for public purpose. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.[S.S.S.R., J.] [P.D.B., J.] 04.04.2025APIndex: YesInternet : YesNeutral Citation: YesTo1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023 Secretariat, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai 600 009.3.The District Collector Kancheepuram District.4.The Registrar Cooperative Society Chennai – 34.5.M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited rep.by the Chief General Manager [Legal] at ''Metros'', No.327, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.6.The Tahsildar Solinganallur Taluk Kancheepuram District.7.The Assistant Director of Ex-servicemen Welfare Kancheepuram District, situated at Tambaram Chennai 600 045.8.The Union of India by Secretary Ministry of Defence, rep.Sainik Bhumi Thathachavani, New Delhi 1.9.Adm-Commandant Representation of Station Head Quarters Fort St George, Chennai-9.51 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/202310.The Defence Estate Officer Chennai Circle No.306, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.11.The Registrar, Cooperative Society 36GR+62P, SH 114, Dasspuram Chetpet, Chennai 600031.12.The Chairman The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.13.The Director, [Military Personnel]-5B Army Head Quarters, AG Branch Wing-3, West Block-3 RK Puram, Sector 1, New Delhi 110 066.14.The Director General Re-Settlement [General] Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare New Delhi 1.15.The District Forest Officer Chennai Forest Division, No.259, 4th Floor DMS Complex, Teynampet Chennai-6. 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023S.S. SUNDAR, J., andP.DHANABAL, J.,APJudgment inWA.Nos.2744 & 3093/202304.04.202553 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALWA No. 3093 of 2023ANDWA NO. 2744 OF 2023,CMP NO. 25737 OF 2023,CMP NO. 23071 OF 2023V. PandianS/o. Veilumuthu, President, The Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners Asso. Office at 2nd flr, No.12, nathamuri Reddy Cross St, Naduvankarai, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.Appellant(s)VsThe Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.Respondent(s)WA No. 2744 of 2023Tamilnadu Ex Servicemen And Pensioners AssociationRep by its President T.Dhanapal 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023NO.1, Abdulla Street, Choolaimedu High Road, Choolaimedu, chennai-600094Appellant(s)VsThe Secretary To GovernmentRevenue Department, Secretariat, ChennaiRespondent(s)CMP No. 25737 of 2023V. PandianS/o. Veilumuthu, President, The Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners Asso. Office at 2nd flr, No.12, nathamuri Reddy Cross St, Naduvankarai, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.Appellant(s)VsThe Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.Respondent(s)CMP No. 23071 of 2023Tamilnadu Ex Servicemen And Pensioners AssociationRep by its President T.Dhanapal NO.1, Abdulla Street, Choolaimedu High Road, Choolaimedu, chennai-600094Appellant(s)55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023VsThe Secretary To GovernmentRevenue Department, Secretariat, ChennaiRespondent(s)WA No. 3093 of 2023For Appellant(s):M/s.G. MutharasuS.ManiveluS.GopinathR.MukeshFor Respondent(s):State Government Pleader For CaveatorM/s. Rita Chandrasekaran For R13(vide Court Order Dt.29.08.2024)M/s. M. Babu Muthu Meeran-ms/759/1984K.Tippu Sultan-ms/2616/2006For R10M/s. Rita Chandrasekar-ms/881/1983Aditya ChandramouliFor R13ORDER(Order of the Court was made by S.S.Sundar J.)Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for reporting compliance”.56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/20232.In both these Appeals, the same Association is represented by two different office bearers. This Court, while allowing these Appeals by judgment dated 04.04.2025, observed as follows :“(30)Post this matter after two weeks from today for the official respondents and the members of the Association to formulate a scheme fixing criterias to identify the real beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 and to ensure that no third parties who are not eligible otherwise get any assignment. The eligible members may be asked to tentatively deposit a specific amount in an interest bearing account in the name of Association to meet the development charges required by statute.”3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants graciously agreed that a retired Judge of this Court may be appointed as Administrator to formulate a Scheme fixing the criteria to identify the real beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Bharathidasan, Judge (Retd.), High Court of Madras, is appointed as 57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023Administrator to identify the real beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.570, dated 05.09.2006, and to ensure that no third parties, who are not eligible otherwise, to get any assignment. 4.The respondents are directed to produce all the records that are available with them. The Revenue officials are directed to cooperate with the Administrator to implement the directions of this Court in identifying the real beneficiaries for whom G.O.Ms.No.570, dated 05.09.2006, was issued. The District Collector and Land Commissioner are directed to produce all the Revenue records which are required by the Administrator to confirm the list of members who are in enjoyment of Government lands but were displaced on account of the land being utilised for public purpose. 5.Learned Additional Advocate General has mentioned that the Government has advised to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as against our judgment dated 04.04.2025. This order shall be treated as part of the order dated 04.04.2025.58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/20236.Having regard to the nature of work, the Administrator is directed to file a report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any report that may be filed will be binding on the respondents. However, this order will be subject to the outcome or any decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition that may be filed by the respondents. 7.The Administrator appointed by this Court for this assignment is permitted to fix his own remuneration not exceeding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month. The remuneration fixed by the Administrator shall be borne out by the appellants in equal proportion. All the legal expenses which the Administrator may incidentally incur, shall also be borne out by the appellants in equal proportion. In case of any difficulty, it is open to the appellants or the Administrator to seek appropriate directions from this Court. 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/20238.Post the matter after three months. (S.S.SUNDAR J.)(P.DHANABAL J.) 29-04-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NomknTo1.Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Bharathidasan, Judge (Retd.), High Court of Madras, New No.22, Old No.L-45, 2nd Main Road, Kamaraj Nagar (West), Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. (Mobile : 9444383139)2.The Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The Commissioner of LandAdministration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.4.The District Collector,Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/20235.The Tahsildar,Solinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.6.The Assistant Director ofEx-Servicemen Welfare, Kancheepuram District.7.The Secretary, Union Of IndiaMinistry of Defence, Sainik Bhumi, Thathachavani, New Delhi-18.Adm-commandantrepresentative of Station Head Quarters, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.9.The Defence Estate Officer,Chennai Circle, No.306, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018. 10.The Registrar,Cooperative Society.11.The ChairmanThe Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-5.12.The Director(Military Personnel)-5B, Army Head Quarters. AG Branch, Wing-3, West Block-3, RK Puram, Sector-1, New Delhi-110 066.61 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/202313.The Director General Re-settlement(General), Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi-1. 14.The Chief General Manager (Legal) Chennai Metro Rail Limitedat ''MetroS'', No.327, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 15.The District Forest OfficerChennai Forest Division, NO.259, 4th Floor, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-6 62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.Nos.2744 & 3093/2023S.S.SUNDAR J.ANDP.DHANABAL J.mknWA No. 3093 of 2023AND WA NO. 2744 OF 2023,CMP NO. 25737 OF 2023,CMP NO. 23071 OF 202329-04-202563