Case Note & Summary
The intra-court writ appeal arose from an order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.36213 of 2023. The original writ petitioners, respondents 1 to 10 herein, were members of the Adi-dravidar community classified as landless poor. They had been granted assignments of land, but those assignments were subsequently cancelled, prompting them to file the writ petition to sustain the land acquisition proceedings initiated for their benefit. The learned single judge, vide paragraph 9 of the impugned order, directed the District Collector, Kallakurichi, to either acquire the lands in which the writ petitioners were in possession or identify alternative suitable sites and allot the same to them. Until such acquisition or allotment, the writ petitioners were not to be disturbed from their respective possession of the properties. The appellants, S. Vimala and J. Deepika, are the owners of the lands in question, and they preferred this appeal challenging the single judge's direction. During the pendency of the appeal, the District Collector identified an alternate site and assigned those lands in favour of the writ petitioners, with pattas also being granted. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of this development, there was no impediment to allowing the writ petitioners to be removed from the appellants' land, as alternate lands had already been assigned. The court recorded this submission and observed that the writ petitioners could take possession of the alternate lands and construct houses as per the assignment conditions. Consequently, the writ appeal was disposed of, recognizing that the single judge's direction stood complied with and that the original landowners’ rights to their property were protected. The judgment affirmed the principle that when a court’s conditional order is satisfied through administrative action, the underlying grievance is resolved, and the judicial direction need not be further enforced against the original landholders.
Headnote
A) Land Laws – Assignment of Land to Landless Poor – Compliance with Court Order – The single judge directed that the writ petitioners not be disturbed from possession of lands and that the District Collector acquire those lands or allot alternate sites. On appeal, the government identified alternate sites and assigned lands with pattas to the writ petitioners. Held, the original landowners are entitled to their property and the writ petitioners are at liberty to take possession of the alternate lands, thus disposing of the appeal in recognition of compliance with the single judge's direction (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitioners' possession should be protected despite cancellation of assignments and whether the single judge's direction for acquisition is sustainable when alternate assignments have been made
Final Decision
The writ appeal was disposed of in recognition of the alternate land assignment to the writ petitioners, with liberty to them to take possession of the alternate lands and construct houses per the assignment conditions. The original landowners' possession was not to be disturbed.
Law Points
- Compliance with court direction by providing alternate land assignment
- protection of original landowners' rights upon fulfillment of statutory obligations
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 50
Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar
Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi, Mr. L. Palani Muthu for appellants; Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan for R11 to R13; Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan for R14; Mr. D. Parthasarathy for R1 to R10
K. Periammal and others (R1 to R24)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against the order of a single judge directing land acquisition or provision of alternate sites for Adi-dravidar landless poor persons whose assignments were cancelled.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (landowners) sought to set aside the direction of the single judge that required acquisition of their land or allotment of alternate sites to the writ petitioners, and to prevent disturbance of their possession.
Filing Reason
The single judge had ordered that the writ petitioners not be disturbed from possession of the lands, and directed acquisition, which threatened the appellants' ownership rights.
Previous Decisions
In W.P.No.36213 of 2023, the single judge directed the District Collector, Kallakurichi, to acquire the lands in possession of the writ petitioners or identify alternative suitable sites and allot the same to them, with a protection order against disturbance of possession.
Issues
Whether the writ petitioners' possession should be protected despite cancellation of their original assignments.
Whether the single judge's direction for land acquisition was appropriate when the government had identified and assigned alternate sites.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants' counsel submitted that the District Collector had identified an alternate site and assigned lands to the writ petitioners with pattas, so there was no reason to disturb the appellants' possession. The writ petitioners could take possession of the alternate lands.
Judgment Excerpts
The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted to assail the order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.36213 of 2023.
The learned single Judge, in paragraph-9, directed the respondent District Collector, Kallakurichi to acquire the lands in which the respondents 1 to 10/writ petitioners are in possession now or otherwise identify alternative suitable sites and allot the same to them and till such time, the writ petitioners shall not be disturbed from their respective possession of the properties.
The learned Senior Counsel Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly made a submission that the District Collector identified alternate site and accordingly assigned the said lands in favour of the respondents 1 to 10 herein. Patta has been granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 10 and therefore there is no impediment to disturb the writ petitioners from the land owned by the appellants herein, since alternate lands have already been assigned in favour of the respondents 1 to 10 and they are at liberty to take possession of the said lands and construct houses as per the assignment conditions or otherwise.
Procedural History
The respondents 1 to 10 initially filed W.P.No.36213 of 2023 challenging the cancellation of land assignments granted to them as Adi-dravidar landless poor. The single judge passed an order on 21.02.2024 directing the District Collector to acquire the lands or provide alternate sites. The appellants filed the present writ appeal against that order. During the pendency of the appeal, the District Collector identified and assigned alternate lands to the writ petitioners, and the appeal was heard on 26.02.2025.
