P.Raveendran Vs. the District Collector

P.Raveendran vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 12, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/926844

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/926844
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R.Banumathi; B.Rajendran, Jj.
Decided On: Jun 12, 2012
Case Number: Writ Appeal (MD)No.444 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Raveendran

Advocate Ms.D.Geetha, Adv.

Respondent

The District Collector

Advocate Mr.A.K.Bahsakara Pandian, Adv.

Excerpt

.....is that the 4th respondent's husband owns 3.5 acres of nanja lands and 3 acres of punja lands and that assignment could only be made to landless poor and that the assignment made to the 4th respondent is in violation of revenue board's standing orders and therefore the appellants sought for cancellation of assignment in favour of the 4th respondent.3. learned single judge, on the ground that the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent was made on 29.02.1996 and absolutely there is no reason to interfere with the said assignment made in favour of the 4th respondent after a period of about 16 years, dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground of laches.4. heard ms.d.geetha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 4th respondent has violated condition no.10 of the assignment which mandates that the assigned land should be cultivated from the date of assignment. it was further submitted that the 4th respondent's husband owns lands and therefore the 4th respondent cannot be termed as a landless poor. learned counsel would further contend that the said assigned lands would be very much useful for the sadayamangalam school. in this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the show cause notice, dated 06.10.1998, issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent for cancelling the assignment.5. as rightly pointed out by the learned single judge, assignment to the 4th respondent was made on 29.02.1996 and if there was any violation of conditions of assignment or revenue board's standing orders, it should have been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned then and there. the appellants have come forward with the writ petition challenging the assignment and seeking cancellation of the same nearly after a period of 16 years. the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. in any event,.....

Full Judgment

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.04.2012, made in W.P.(MD)No.5410/2012.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI,J)

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.5410 of 2012 (Dated 20.04.2012), the Appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal.

2. An extent of 2 acres 75 cents of land in Survey No.45/2, Sadayamangalam Village, Kannangudi Post, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, was assigned to the 4th Respondent, by the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in D.A.21/1405, dated 29.02.1996. In the Writ Petition, the Appellants sought for cancellation of the said assignment proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, issued to the 4th Respondent, and also sought for a direction to the 2nd Respondent to assign the said land in favour of the Government Middle School, Sadayamangalam. The Appellants have alleged that even though the assignment was made in favour of the 4th Respondent on 29.02.1996, the said land remained uncultivated and the 4th Respondent has violated Condition No.10 of the Assignment. Further contention of the Appellants is that the 4th Respondent's husband owns 3.5 acres of Nanja lands and 3 acres of Punja Lands and that assignment could only be made to landless poor and that the assignment made to the 4th Respondent is in violation of Revenue Board's Standing Orders and therefore the Appellants sought for cancellation of assignment in favour of the 4th Respondent.

3. Learned Single Judge, on the ground that the assignment in favour of the 4th Respondent was made on 29.02.1996 and absolutely there is no reason to interfere with the said assignment made in favour of the 4th Respondent after a period of about 16 years, dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground of laches.

4. Heard Ms.D.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Reiterating the averments made in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the 4th Respondent has violated Condition No.10 of the Assignment which mandates that the assigned land should be cultivated from the date of assignment. It was further submitted that the 4th Respondent's husband owns lands and therefore the 4th Respondent cannot be termed as a landless poor. Learned counsel would further contend that the said assigned lands would be very much useful for the Sadayamangalam School. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the show cause notice, dated 06.10.1998, issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 4th Respondent for cancelling the assignment.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, assignment to the 4th Respondent was made on 29.02.1996 and if there was any violation of conditions of assignment or Revenue Board's Standing Orders, it should have been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned then and there. The Appellants have come forward with the Writ Petition challenging the assignment and seeking cancellation of the same nearly after a period of 16 years. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. In any event, by a perusal of the typed-set of papers, it is seen that the authorities themselves have initiated action against the 4th Respondent by issuing show- cause notice. Therefore, we do not find any reason warranting interference in the order of the learned Single Judge.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties P.Raveendran vs The District Collector Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R.Banumathi; B.Rajendran, Jj.