Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 933 (MAD)

District Collector, Namakkal v. Liyakath Ali

2015-02-16

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
JUDGMENT:- Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 06.1.2014, whereunder, the Writ Court directed the respondents-authorities/appellants to issue priority certificate in the name of the respondent/writ petitioner's son. 2. The writ petitioner / respondent herein came up with the writ petition to question the legality of the order dated 21.7.2010 passed in Na.Ka. No.(A7)10394/2009 passed by the second appellant and consequently, seeking a direction to issue priority certificate in favour of his son. 3. The brief facts as projected by the writ petitioner are that the writ petitioner was the owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres and 0.40 cents in S.Nos.283/1A and 282/2, 3 in Karkoodalpatti village, Rasipuram, Namakkal District respectively. The writ petitioner donated one piece of land to an extent of 1 acre in S.No.283/1A by way of a registered gift deed dated 19.8.2009 to the State Government for the purpose of construction of “Periyar Ninaivu Samathuvapuram”. Thereafter, another piece to an extent of 40 cents covered in S.No.282/2 and 282/3 was sold to the Government for a sum of Rs.50120/- by registered deed dated 3.12.2009. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 29.6.1983, the petitioner submitted a representation on 19.5.2010 for issuance of priority certificate to his son. The said representation was considered and rejected by order dated 21.7.2010. Thus, the writ petition, as aforestated, has been filed. 4. The learned Single Judge, relying on paragraph 2(i) of G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 29.6.1983, allowed the writ petition directing the appellants/ respondents therein to issue priority certificate in the name of the writ petitioner's son, within a period of four weeks. G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 29.6.1983 reads as under : “2(i)...All public sector undertaking may recruit without reference to Employment Exchange, at least one member of each family which is displaced on account of acquisition of lands for any projects of such public sector undertaking etc., provided that the acquired land should have been the only or major source of sustenance for that family.” 5. Under this G.O., one member of displaced family on account of acquisition of land for any projects of public sector undertakings, is entitled to recruitment without reference to the employment exchange. For this purpose, priority certificate is to be issued by the authorities. There is no dispute that one piece of land was acquired on account of donation and the other was on account of purchase. For this purpose, priority certificate is to be issued by the authorities. There is no dispute that one piece of land was acquired on account of donation and the other was on account of purchase. The question as to whether the land in question was only the major source of sustenance for the family was not considered by the authorities, while rejecting his representation for the grant of priority certificate in favour of the writ petitioner's son. Thus, it is not proper to go into the said issue, at this stage. 6. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the entire gamut of dispute and allowed the writ petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court is just and proper, warranting no interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks some more time to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court, to which there is no objection from the other side. We accordingly grant further four weeks time to comply with the order of the Writ Court, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.