Case Note & Summary
The present writ appeals were filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2022 in W.P.Nos.9633 and 32684 of 2018. The appellants had challenged the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 20.02.2018, which cancelled the assignment of land granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the appellants and directed reassignment to respondents 5 to 9. The single Judge upheld the cancellation, finding that the assignment was based on misrepresentation and false declaration regarding the community of the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. The Division Bench, after hearing the counsel for the appellants and the respondents, noted that the appellants' counsel argued that the Land Commissioner did not consider the limitation period under Section 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, and that basic facts regarding possession and proof were not considered. However, the court observed that the limitation issue was not raised before the single Judge and that the cancellation was justified due to the misrepresentation of community. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the order of the single Judge.
Headnote
A) Land Reforms - Assignment Cancellation - Limitation - Section 11(3)(b) Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 - The appellants challenged the cancellation of land assignment on the ground that the Land Commissioner did not consider the limitation period under Rule 11(3)(b). The Division Bench held that the limitation issue was not raised before the single Judge and that the cancellation was based on misrepresentation of community, which vitiates the assignment. (Paras 2-3)
B) Land Reforms - Misrepresentation - Cancellation of Assignment - The assignment in favour of the appellants was cancelled because they made a false declaration regarding their community. The court held that such misrepresentation justifies cancellation, and the subsequent assignments to respondents 5 to 9 were valid. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of land assignment by the Land Commissioner was barred by limitation under Section 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, and whether the cancellation was justified on merits.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the common order of the single Judge dated 05.07.2022.
Law Points
- Limitation under Section 11(3)(b) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules
- 1965
- Cancellation of assignment for misrepresentation
- Natural justice in cancellation proceedings
Case Details
WA No. 1861 of 2022 and WA No. 1865 of 2022
S. M. Subramaniam, C. Kumarappan
V. Manohar for appellant(s), T. Arun Kumar for R1 to R4, J. Jayamalan for R8 & R9
Santhosh kumar, Soundararajan
The Director of Land Reforms, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Thasildar, The Secretary to the Government, Mr.Rasiappan, Mr.Komaran, Mr.Pazhani, Mr.Kittan, Tmt. Pappal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeals against common order of single Judge dismissing writ petitions challenging cancellation of land assignment.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order of the single Judge and allow the writ petitions.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the cancellation of land assignment by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 20.02.2018, which was upheld by the single Judge.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge dismissed W.P.Nos.9633 and 32684 of 2018 on 05.07.2022, upholding the cancellation of assignment.
Issues
Whether the cancellation of assignment was barred by limitation under Section 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965?
Whether the cancellation of assignment was justified on the ground of misrepresentation of community?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Land Commissioner did not consider the limitation period under Section 11(3)(b) of the Rules and did not consider basic facts regarding possession and proof.
Respondents supported the cancellation, stating it was based on misrepresentation of community.
Ratio Decidendi
The cancellation of land assignment due to misrepresentation of community is valid, and the limitation issue under Section 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, not having been raised before the single Judge, cannot be raised in appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
the assignment in favour of the petitioner was made, based upon the misrepresentation and false declaration in respect of the community of the petitioners, therefore, the cancellation of assignment and subsequent assignments in favour of respondents 5 to 9 are in order
the Land Commissioner, without considering the limitation provided under Section 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, has cancelled the assignment
Procedural History
The appellants filed W.P.Nos.9633 and 32684 of 2018 challenging G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 20.02.2018. The single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 05.07.2022. The appellants then filed the present writ appeals against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965: Section 11(3)(b)
