Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 313 (MAD)

S. Balraj v. The State of Tamilnadu & Others

2008-01-30

M.VENUGOPAL, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2008
`Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This writ petition in public interest has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to expedite the proceedings for cancellation of assignment in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.27 & 5 at East Rajapalayam Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Athur, Salem District and to restore the said lands for “cattle grazing”. 2. According to the petitioner, the lands comprised in Survey Nos.27 & 5, East Rajapalayam Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District, measuring about 100 acres, are the Government poramboke lands for “cattle grazing”. The petitioner is a neighbour and also rearing cattle. For most of the village people who are farmers, their main source of income is only through the cattle rearing, who use the lands in question as the grazing lands. During the period 1978-1980, the Government assigned the above said 100 acres of poramboke lands to the members of Anna Sumai Thookkum Thozhilalar Sangam, Athur Bus Stand. As it was in the interest of the villagers, they could not object to the same, though they were deprived of grazing the lands for cattle. At the time of assignment, the assignees executed an agreement, by which they were prevented from alienating the said assignment lands to any one or other person for a period of ten years and further after ten years, if they prefer to sell the lands, it was stipulated that they had to seek prior permission from the authorities concerned. In the assignment, it was also made clear that that if the assignee choose to sell the lands without prior permission from the Government, the assignment shall stand cancelled. It was re-affirmed by the Government in the year 1988-vide letter in Rg.No.NG/A4/6469/80, dated 2. 1988 and the said clause was introduced to protect the interest of the assignees and also to protect the lands from putting into any commercial use. It was also stipulated in the assignment that the lands shall be put to cultivation immediately and shall be used only for cultivation purpose. 3. 1988 and the said clause was introduced to protect the interest of the assignees and also to protect the lands from putting into any commercial use. It was also stipulated in the assignment that the lands shall be put to cultivation immediately and shall be used only for cultivation purpose. 3. It appears that certain persons violated the assignment by taking steps to sell the lands in favour of certain persons and having come to know of the same, the petitioner represented the matter before the authorities, but not having taken any steps, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21050 of 2001 before this Court for determination of the representation and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 11. 2001 and the authorities were directed to decide the representation and take appropriate action. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, thereafter, though started enquiry, did not choose to complete it. The third respondent sent a letter dated 22. 2002 to the second respondent, stating that they have served notice on six assignees and 13 persons, who subsequently purchased and two persons have left to Singapore, on whom, notice could not be served, but as no final determination has been made, the present Writ Petition has been preferred. 4. From the aforesaid pleadings, it will be evident that the petitioner raised the matter as back as in 2001, wherein this Court in W.P.No.21050 of 2001, directed the authorities to decide the representation and to take appropriate action, but it is not clear as to why no final determination has been made. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents showing the status report of the enquiry, if any made on the representation of the petitioner or action if any, taken for cancellation of the assignment. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents showing the status report of the enquiry, if any made on the representation of the petitioner or action if any, taken for cancellation of the assignment. 5. In the circumstances, while we direct the authorities to pass final orders on the question of cancellation of assignment, after hearing the parties, within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, we also give liberty to the petitioner, as also the competent authority of the State/respondents to get a declaration from a Court of competent jurisdiction with regard to the validity of the sale deeds which were alleged to have been executed by the assignees in violation of the assignment as were made in their favour. If such a step has not yet been taken, the competent authority of the State will take such steps, if it is found that the assignment has been violated and the sale deeds have been executed. The petitioner will produce a copy of this order before the District Collector, Salem, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Athur, Salem District and the Tahsildar, Gangavalli Taluk, Gangavalli, Salem District, who will ensure compliance of this order. 6. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. But there shall be no order as to costs.