Judgment · High Court

1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 03.01.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)No.13951 of 2011andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Tmt. Amaravathiammal : Petitioner Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

The Thasildhar, Ottanchatiram, Dindigul District. : RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings inNa.Ka.No.5411/2011/A1, dated 15.11.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.HemakarthikeyanFor Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janardhanan, Additional Government PleaderORDERThis Writ Petition is directed against the proceedings dated15.11.2011 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, DindigulDistrict, the first respondent herein, whereby and whereunder, the assignment given to the petitioner on 11.08.1981 was cancelled under the premise that there was a violation of the conditions appended to the order of assignment. 2. According to the petitioner, she was given assignment of landin Edaiyakottai in Survey No.458/2 to an extent of 2.02 acres as per the proceedings of Tahsildhar, Palani, dated 11.08.1981. The order of assignment contains certain conditions prohibiting assignment. Thepetitioner has been cultivating the land for the last 30 years. However, on account of her old-age, she was not in a position to cultivate and, therefore, she sold the land to her grandson by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2011. This made the first respondent to cancel the assignment. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was issued to her before passing the impugned order and as such, the order isviolative of the principles of natural justice.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prohibition regarding assignment was only for a period of 10 years from the date of assignment and the present sale was after a period of 10years. The said aspect was not considered by the first respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent is the appellate authority and in the subject case, the impugned order of cancellation was made only by the appellate authority and thereby, she was denied the opportunity of filing an appeal.

The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that adiscreet enquiry was made and the impugned order was passed only on the basis of the said enquiry and, therefore, no interference is called for in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2the order under challenge.

There is no dispute that an extent of 2.02 acres of property in Survey No.458/2 in Edaiyakottai Village was assigned to the petitioner by way of proceedings dated 11.08.1981. The order of assignment contains certain mandatory conditions, one of which relates to the prohibition regarding assignment of the land for a period of 10 years. Admittedly, the property was sold to the grandson of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2011.

The impugned order contains a statement that there was aviolation of the conditions of assignment, which made the first respondent to cancel the assignment. However, the impugned order does not contain any indication that a notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation. The petitioner was given assignment way back in the year 1981 and the impugned order of cancellation was made only in the year2011. Therefore, considering the continuous occupation of the land by the petitioner for a period of 30 years, necessarily she should have been givena notice before passing any orders in the matter. Though the impugned order contains a reference about the enquiry, the learned Additional GovernmentPleader was not in a position to substantiate the contention that notice was issued to the petitioner and the order was passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to her. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.