Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 611 (MAD)

Dhanakodi v. District Collector, Ariyalur

2020-03-11

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2020
JUDGMENT (Prayer: PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned proceedings dated 06.10.2012 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein, quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.10.2012 to grant free patta to the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos.256/15B and 270/8B situated in Vellur Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District under the category of landless labour belonging to Adi Dravidar Community.) 1. I have heard Mr.K.Sridharkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Reehana Begum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned list of beneficiaries selected by the third respondent for grant of a free house site patta on the ground that without any justification, the petitioner's name was deleted from the list of beneficiaries. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that several other persons, to whom the free house site patta was granted, were ineligible. There is also a vague allegation that persons known to the third respondent were granted patta. 4. The third respondent filed a counter inter alia stating about the land acquisition proceedings, which culminated in the award dated 21.3.2010. It has been further stated that while the land acquisition proceedings were being done, the third respondent prepared a list of beneficiaries based on the recommendations of the Village Administrative Officer concerned and that 56 persons were short-listed. According to the third respondent, the names of seven persons were deleted from the list on the ground that they were not eligible to get free house site patta and that 49 persons were selected for the final list, which was approved by the District Collector concerned. The allegation that the petitioner's name was placed in S.No.93 had been disputed by the third respondent in the counter. It has also been stated that the eligible list was prepared in the year 2011 only and finally arrived on 06.10.2012. It has been further stated that the petitioner's name was deleted from the list of persons as she owns a house and a vacant site in the same village and that her mother is the owner of an extent of 0.30.0 hectares of land in her name. It has been further stated that the petitioner's name was deleted from the list of persons as she owns a house and a vacant site in the same village and that her mother is the owner of an extent of 0.30.0 hectares of land in her name. The allegation that favouritism was shown in respect of some allottees was disputed in the counter. 5. A reply/rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner stating that as per the information obtained by her under the Right to Information Act, from the list prepared in the year 1997, the petitioner's name found place in item No.93 of the list. It has been further stated that no proper or fair enquiry was conducted by the third respondent before issuing free house site patta. 6. It is not clear as to whether as on date, there is any vacant house site patta available. Be that as it may, had the third respondent conducted a proper enquiry before disqualifying the petitioner, this litigation would have been avoided. 7. The petitioner makes an emphatic averment in the writ petition that she does not own any property as alleged by the third respondent in the counter affidavit. Apart from that, she also states that several of the persons, for whom, patta was granted, were ineligible persons. 8. The pattas already granted to 49 beneficiaries cannot be interfered with because none of them has been made as party respondents to this writ petition. However, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is a prima facie proof to show that in the list prepared on 08.8.1997, the name of the petitioner found a place in S.No.93. From the photocopy of the document, it is seen that the following endorsement has been made by the second respondent on 07.3.1998: “Delete and include Kamalam, W/O Rajangam for withdrawal of W.P.No.13489 of 1997.” 9. It is not clear as to what is the prayer sought in the said writ petition namely W.P.No.13489 of 1997 and presumably it might have been filed by the said Mrs.Kamalam. Nevertheless, before deleting the name of the petitioner and that too, on the ground that she owns a house, the third respondent could have issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain as to why her name should not be deleted from the provisional list of beneficiaries. Nevertheless, before deleting the name of the petitioner and that too, on the ground that she owns a house, the third respondent could have issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain as to why her name should not be deleted from the provisional list of beneficiaries. Had that procedure been followed, the petitioner would not have raised any objection. However, considering the efflux of time, no positive direction can be granted at this juncture. Further, if the petitioner is able to establish that she still continues to be a landless poor, then the third respondent can consider her case for allotment of a free house site patta in any other area where such free house site pattas are being granted by the respondents. 10. For the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to issue notice to the petitioner calling upon her to appear and explain as to how she is entitled to a free house site patta by producing necessary certificates. If the third respondent is satisfied that the petitioner is an eligible person, appropriate recommendations shall be made to the second respondent for allotment of a free house site patta in any other area. Upon consideration of the documents to be produced by the petitioner, if the third respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is not an eligible person, a speaking order shall be passed to that effect giving reasons and communicated to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.