1 Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dated : 16.12.2011 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WRIT PETITION (MD) No.10320 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011 1.K.Sundari 2.Sujatha Educational Trust, rep. Through its Managing Trustee & Administrator of Thangam Muthu Polytechnic College, Smt.M. Suganthi, 41/50, Nellaiyapapuram, Pandian Nagar, Thirunagar, Madurai-6. ...Petitioners Vs 1.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Sub.Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni. 4.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam, Theni District. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.76131/2005/Ml. Dated 19.8.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the patta granted to the second petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagudevan, Spl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition challenging the cancellation of assignment. 2. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The facts leading to filing of the above writ petition are as follows : (a) An extent of 2.26 acres of dry land comprised in survey No. 203 of Endapuli Kamatchipuram village of Periyakulam Taluk was originally classified as assessed waste dry poramboke land and the same was assigned free of cost to one Ramasamy Chettiar as per Periyakulam Tahsildar's DKT 2542/80 dated 28.7.1971 as per the provisions of Revenue Standing Order No.15. Among the several conditions of assignment, the important and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 foremost condition imposed was that the assignee should not sell, hypothecate or in any way encumber the land for a period of ten years from the date of assignment. (b) But, in contravention of the condition, the assignee sold the land to one Hameetha Begam through a registered sale deed dated 6.2.1981, who, in turn, sold the land to one Paulraj through a registered sale deed dated 10.2.1981. Therefore, action was initiated and the land was resumed to Government for violation of assignment conditions as per the order of Assistant Collector, Periyakulam dated 19.12.1983. (c) Aggrieved by this resumption of land, one Thiru Paulraj, a representative of M/s.Vaigai Paper Boards preferred a writ petition and got the land reassigned on payment of the land value at the rate that prevailed in 1981. (d) Accordingly and as per the directions of the respondent No.1 herein in his ROC.No.F2/29176/1989 dated 7.10.1993, the market value of the land was collected and the land was reassigned as per the orders of the Assistant Collector, Periyakulam in his ROC 9054/1993/ A8 dated 17.3.1995. This time also, all usual dharkhast assignment conditions were stipulated including the main condition that the land assigned should not be sold, hypothecated or in any way encumbered within a period of ten years from the date of the assignment viz., 17.3.1995. (e) But once again, the assignee Thiru Paulraj sold away the assigned land to the first petitioner herein for a consideration of Rs.97,375/- as per a registered sale deed No.1297 of 1997 dated 21.11.1997. (f) Though the respondents appear to have taken steps for the cancellation of assignment, they were actually dragging their feet. In the meantime, a period of ten years passed. (g) Therefore, the land was sold to the second petitioner under the sale deed dated 1.2.2007. The patta was also transferred in the name of the second petitioner. (h) Thereafter, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.8.2011 cancelling the assignment forcing the petitioners to come up with the above writ petition. 4. The only reason for the cancellation of assignment in favour of Paulraj was that he violated the Board Standing Order No.15, restricting any alienation for a period of ten years. But the fact remains that though the earliest assignment in favour of Ramasamy Chettiar was free of costs, the assignment in favour of Paulraj by the proceedings dated 17.3.1995, was for the market value of the property. The proceedings dated 17.3.1995, by which the land was assigned by the Assistant Collector, Periyakulam to Paulraj does not also contain any condition, restricting alienation. Therefore, I called upon the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the files. The original file relating to the assignment in favour of Paulraj was produced. 5. In the original file also, the proceedings dated 17.3.1995 do not contain any condition restricting the alienation. However, there is a reference to the usual conditions under the Board Standing Order No.15. 6. In so far as the Board Standing Order No.15 is concerned, there appears to be some contradictions. While some Government Orders refer to a special condition restraining the alienation in G.O.Ms. No.336/Rev dated 15.2.1954, G.O.Ms.No.316/Rev dated 5.9.1958 stipulates that the special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 conditions listed in Board Standing Order No. 15 would not apply to a sale made upon collecting the market value. 7. It is also well settled that once a sale is made, after collecting the market value of the property, the condition restraining alienation cannot be enforced. It would be a different matter if the Government had shown some concession in the prices fixed for the sale of the land. In other words, if an assignment had been made upon the payment of anything lesser than the market value, on account of some special reasons, then the restriction regarding alienation would hold good. But, in this case, the file discloses that no concession was shown to Paulraj in so far as the market value of the land is concerned. Therefore, the restriction regarding alienation cannot be applied to the case on hand. 8. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR GSR/RS To 1.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Sub.Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni. 4.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam, Theni District. 1CC TO MR. A. HAJA MOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE, SR: 44084: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 44350: DM::2012::JANUARY:02:: WP(MD)No.10320 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 3P:7C: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/