High Court · 2025

W.A.No.580 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW.A.No.580 of 2025andC.M.P.No.4687 of 2025K.Ramakrishnan ... Appellant Vs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary& Commissioner of Land Administration,Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.2.The District Collector,Tirunelveli District.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirunelveli District.4.The Tahsildar,Tirunelveli District.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.No.16464 of 2017.For Appellant: M/s.M.KemprajPage 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025JUDGMENT(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)Under assail is the common order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.No.16464 of 2017.2.The Writ Petitioner is the appellant before this Court.3.Land was assigned under the Revenue Standing Orders for cultivation by the Revenue Authorities as per the terms stipulated in the Assignment Order and in the Revenue Standing Order. The Authorities based on the information conducted inspection and found that the Government assigned land had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was assigned in favour of the appellant. It was assigned for agricultural activities. The Authorities found that there is no agricultural activities carried on by the appellant and few other assignees in that locality. The market value of the lands in that locality is sky rocketing, on account of urbanisation and various other activities. Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 20254.When the assignees have not utilised the land for agricultural purposes as per the terms and conditions of the assignment, action was initiated by the Revenue Authorities. Regarding the field inspections conducted by the Revenue Authorities, the Collector in the cancellation order has made the following findings:"On 24.11.99, when the Thasildar, Tirunelveli, carried out the field inspection of the lands mentioned above, as per the conditions of the assignment, the beneficiaries did not carry out the cultivation, and the lands were wastelands. Since the condition that cultivation should be carried out within three years from the date of assignment has been violated, a notice dated 26.22.99 was issued by the Taluk Office as to why the assignment should not be cancelled. The notice issued by the Tahsildar was served directly to Mr.Ramakrishnan, Mrs.Muppidathi and Subramanian, and since the assignee Mrs.Kombu Ammal, was dead, the notice was served on her son Mr.Krishnan Thevar on 31.12.99. The four persons, who received the notice, have submitted their reply to the Thasildar on 10.1.2000. They stated in their reply that they could bring the land under cultivation only if there were any rains, and cultivation was carried out whenever there were rains, and they cultivated avari crops. The avari crop cultivated in the fazli 1407 was recorded in the adangal, and for the fazli years 1406, 1047 and 1408, the avari crop was cultivated, and the leaves were harvested, and the adangals were enclosed. However, the Thasildar, in his letter dated 19.01.2000, had stated that at the time of conducting the field auditing of the land assigned, no one had carried out the cultivation, Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025and there was no actions or any attempt made to carry out cultivation and the lands were kept as wasteland and therefore recommended the Revenue Divisional Officer that the assignment might be cancelled. Further in the notice dated 19.10.2001, the Thasildar had stated that when all the four beneficiaries received the assignments, their earnings were more than the maximum earnings eligible to receive the land assignment free of cost, and therefore they were not eligible to receive the land assignment free of cost and the assignees Mrs.Kombu Ammal, Mrs.Muppidathi Ammal and Mr.Ramakrishnan were the mother, brother's wife and brother's son respectively of the Village Assistant Mr.Arumugam and under such circumstances recommended the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the assignment."5.The District Collector, Tirunelveli canceled the assignment on the basis of the eligibility criteria and regarding the non-usage of the assigned land for the purpose for which it was assigned as per the assignment conditions. Against the cancellation of assignment, the appellant along with other assignees preferred a revision before the Commissioner of land administration. The Commissioner of Land Administration elaborately considered the issues and passed impugned final orders in proceedings dated 15.04.2016 and the relevant paragraphs reads as under: "(b) RSO 15(2)(iii) lays down the definition of "Poor person" for eligibility for free assignment of land as follows:-Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025"The "poor person" is one whose family income does not exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum"It is seen from the report of the District Inspection Cell Officer that the beneficiary, Thiru.Ramakrishnan, was earning a monthly income of Rs.1,300/- (Annual Income is Rs.15,600/-) at the time of assignment. The monthly income of the other beneficiary, Thiru.Subramanian is Rs.3,180/- (Annual Income is Rs.38,160/-) In respect of Tmt.Muppidathi her husband earned a annual income of Rs.18,000/- by way of cultivation of 1.19 acres of land belonging to the Duvadasi Trust under kudivaram rights. Thiru Isakki Devar, H/o. Tmt.Kombu Ammal, another beneficiary, owned 0.29.0 Hec. of land in S.No.210/1 under patta No.933. In the circumstances, the District Inspection Cell Officer has rightly reported that all the beneficiaries are ineligible for free assignment of Government land and had got assignment by suppressing all the above facts. The revision petitioners have not denied these facts at any point of time during the hearing before this forum. They have merely contended that the District Collector had passed the impugned order without giving them notice or hearing. The revision petitioners have now been given adequate opportunity to put for their claims before this revision forum but they have not produced any documentary evidence to dispute these facts regarding their ineligibility. Moreover, they have claimed that they are in continuous possession of the land and have also sold the land to the third parties, when the assignment had already been calcelled, indicating their mala fide intention. Hence as regards the second issue, it is clearly found that the revision petitioners were ineligible for free assignment of Government lands and have got the same by suppressing the facts in Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025their application. Thus, the finding of the District Collector that they ave violated a fundamental condition of assignment is also upheld.7.In the circumstances, it is seen from all the Revenue records and submissions put forth by the revision petitioners, that the District Collector, Thirunelveli, had rightly considered the case i.e, violation of assignment condition to the effect that the land in question was not brought into cultivation within the stipulated time, and passed orders cancelling the free assignment to the ineligible persons, and also passed orders for entering the land in the Prohibitive Order Book, since the lands in question are highly valuable and may be required for public purpose in future."6.The learned single Judge elaborately considered the issues with reference to the reasons given by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in the cancellation order as well as the findings made by the revision Authorities. 7.This Court is of the considered opinion that assignment of Government land or grant of free patta cannot be claimed as an absolute right. It is a concession granted by the Government by formulating schemes to provide better livelihood to the poor landless people. Eligibility criteria are contemplated both under the Scheme and under the Revenue Standing Orders. Abuse of Government land at no circumstances be permitted by the Revenue Authorities. In the event of any assignment to ineligible persons, the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025Authorities granting assignment are accountable and answerable. 8.In the present case, the Authorities conducted inspection and found that the appellant and other assignees are ineligible. Further the lands are not utilised for agricultural purpose. The learned Single Judge has considered all these issues in consonance with the Revenue Standing Orders and the reasoning given by the District Collector and Commissioner of Land Administration. 9.That being so, the appellant has not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining the writ appeal and consequently stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.]28.02.2025 vedaIndex:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation:Yes/NoPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary& Commissioner of Land Administration,Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.2.The District Collector,Tirunelveli District.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirunelveli District.4.The Tahsildar,Tirunelveli District.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.580 of 2025S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.ANDK.RAJASEKAR,J.vedaW.A.No.580 of 202528.02.2025Page 9 of 9