Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4585 (MAD)

A. Krishnaswamy v. District Collector, Coimbatore

2012-11-05

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2012
Judgment :- The petitioner is a resident of Somayampalayam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District. 2. He requested the first respondent to assign the land S.No.196/2 measuring about 1.12.5 hectare (2.78 acres) on sale. His request was rejected by the first respondent under the impugned order dated 30.04.2012 on the ground that the lands are required for the Police Department and also that the petitioner possesses some lands. Hence, the petitioner has sought to quash the aforesaid order in this writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and they seek to sustain the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted 2C patta on 02.07.1996 by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk with regard to the property for the purpose of using the usufructs of the trees. As per the conditions imposed in the 2C patta, the petitioner shall pay the annual tax of Rs.1,100/- at Rs.50/-per tamarind tree and that he has a right to usufruct, that is to say, the leaves and droppings as well as the fruits but he cannot cut down the trees. 6. According to the petitioner, he has been enjoying the fruits from those trees for the past 60 years. 7. But according to the respondents, the petitioner has been in enjoyment of the tamarind trees from 1996 onwards. 8. While so, the petitioner sought for assignment of the said lands by sale to him. He made a representation in this regard. Thereafter, he came to this Court seeking a direction to dispose of his representation. This Court passed an order dated 06.09.2011 in W.P.No.18306 of 2011, directing the first respondent to pass orders on his request for grant of assignment of land in S.No.196/2 as stated above. 9. Based on the direction of this Court, the first respondent passed the impugned order refusing to grant assignment of the land on sale to the petitioner on two reasons. Firstly, it is stated that the Police Department require the lands for their use and secondly, it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of 3.10.5 hec. and also owning a brick-kiln and therefore, he is not entitled for assignment of lands on sale. 10. Learned Senior Counsel has seriously disputed the reasons given in the impugned order. Firstly, it is stated that the Police Department require the lands for their use and secondly, it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of 3.10.5 hec. and also owning a brick-kiln and therefore, he is not entitled for assignment of lands on sale. 10. Learned Senior Counsel has seriously disputed the reasons given in the impugned order. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner does not possess any land and also he does not own a brick-kiln . 11. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan has vehemently opposed the claim of the learned Senior Counsel and contended that no such avements are made in the writ petition. I am not going into that issue as to whether the petitioner is in possession of some other lands. Since the first respondent has stated that the lands are required for the Police Department, that itself is sufficient for refusing to assign the land to the petitioner. The relevant passage from the impugned order is extracted in this regard: Vernacular (Tamil) Portion Deleted 12. Therefore, as far as the refusal of the first respondent to assign the land in favour of the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that the impugned order warrants no interference. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, there is no reason to cancel the 2C patta, granted in favour of the petitioner, until the land is used by the Police Department. 14. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been enjoying the usufructs of the tamarind trees from 1996 onwards for about 16 years and he has been maintaining and nurturing those trees. He has also been paying the tax imposed on him in this regard. Therefore, I am of the view that the first respondent is not correct in cancelling the 2C patta that was granted in favour of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that 2C patta can be cancelled as and when the land is actually resumed for the use of Police Department. Until the lands are resumed for the purpose of Police Department, the right of the petitioner to the usufructs of the trees cannot be disturbed. The writ petition is disposed of with the above said observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.