P.Sivakumar v. The Home Secretary

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.

2.The petitioner's family owned 2.18 acres in S.No.135/4A in Kavandanpatti village, Usilampatti Taluk. The said land was acquired for disbursing the same among landless poor. It appears that the land acquisition proceedings had attained finality and the petitioner's family was not successful in assailing the same. Be that as it may, assignment orders were passed in favour of 79 persons and they were allowed to take possession. The grievance of the petitioner is that the assignees were not eligible to get assignment but brushing aside the petitioner's objections, the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police gave protection to them to enter upon the lands and also put up constructions. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for initiating action against the police personnel.

3.I am not persuaded by the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the job of the police is to give protection to the assignees to enter upon the land. The police are not competent to go into the issue of validity of assignment. So long as the 79 persons had assignment orders in their favour, the police were justified in granting them protection. I, therefore, decline to issue any direction as sought for in this writ petition.

4.At the same time, the other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.14853 of 2014 for directing the authorities to act on his representation. The petitioner had complained that ineligible persons had been granted assignment. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 passed the following direction:- "4.In view of the fact that the petitioner had sent a detailed representation on 27.03.2013 and also send remainders on 03.08.2013, 10.09.2013 and 21.09.2013 and ultimately submitted a representation on 26.08.2014 to the Respondents 2 and 3 and the said representation / remainders till date have not met with the positive result. This Court, at this stage, in the interest of justice and equity besides Fair play, directs the second and third Respondents to look into the final representation dated

23.08.2014 together with the representation dated

23.03.2013 and other remainders issued by him on

03.08.2013, 10.09.2013 and 21.09.2013 in a pragmatic and positive manner and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits with the dispassionate manner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, (ofcourse, after providing due opportunities to the petitioner and others concerned, if any by adhering to the principles of natural justice)."

5.It appears that without associating the petitioner or even the beneficiaries, an illegal order was passed cancelling the assignment made in favour of 29 persons. One of them filed W.P.(MD)No.15987 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 14.02.2023 setting aside the cancellation on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. I wanted to know if further order has been passed. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that the matter is still pending. The eighth respondent herein shall hold enquiry in the matter. Enquiry shall be conducted on 16.08.2023. On the said date, the petitioner will be allowed to be present. Intimation shall be sent to all the 29 beneficiaries whose assignments were cancelled. The eighth respondent shall adhere to due process of law and test the eligibility of the said 29 persons. The petitioner also will be permitted to place materials before the eighth respondent. After hearing all the parties and after considering the materials on record, the eighth respondent shall pass order within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly contend that the remaining 50 persons are also not eligible to get assignment. But the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chepauk, Chenai had come to the conclusion that the remaining 50 persons are eligible to get assignment. Proceedings to this effect were issued on 13.07.2017. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can very well question the same independently or take the matter before the Government. Liberty is granted to the petitioner in this regard.

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

26.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:-

1.The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Channai - 9.

2.The Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravida Welfare Department, Saint George Fort, Chennai - 9.

3.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

4.The Deputy Inspector of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.

5.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

6.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai.

7.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

8.The Special Tahsildhar, Adi-Dravida Welfare, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias

26.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14469 of 2023 P.Sivakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Channai - 9. 2.The Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravida Welfare Department, Saint George Fort, Chennai - 9. 3.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 4.The Deputy Inspector of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. 5.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 6.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 7.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai. 8.The Special Tahsildhar, Adi-Dravida Welfare, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 9. Paulsamy 10. Kamatchi 11. Pasupathi 12. Chinnachamy 13. Vivekandhan 14. Agni 15. Kathar 16. Thangamalai 17. Perumal 18. Kamatchi 19. Ramakrishnan 20. Jeyaraj 21. Krishnan 22. Pathinettampadi 23. Kannan @ Sakkarai 24. Kamatchi 25. Murugan 26. Koolmayan 27. Ayyer 28. Sekar 29. Karunakaran 30. Rasu 31. Karuppaiah 32. Kaththar 33. Chinnan 34. Ayyavu 35. Pandiyan 36. Chandran 37. Kamatchi 38. Murugan 39. Ramuthai 40. Palchamy 41. Karamani 42. Manikodi 43. Pandi 44. Pandian 45. Selvam 46. Vanarajan 47. Chellammal 48. Pandian 49. Natarajan 50. Lakshmanan 51. Selvam 52. Jeyaraman 53. Deivam 54. Palchamy 55. Thangarasu 56. Petchi 57. Raman 58. Ayyer 59. Kamatchi 60. Subbu 61. Perumayee 62. Pitchai 63. Jeyaraj 64. Nallamodi 65. Periyakaruppan 66. Petchiammal 67. Perumal 68. Paulsamy 69. Mokkaiyan 70. Nagaraj 71. Mokkadurai 72. Pandi 73. Mookkan 74. Muniyandi 75. Rasu 76. Rajendran 77. Chellapandi 78. Karuppaiah 79. Mokkappalani 80. Ayyanar 81. Petchi 82. Muniyandi 83. Periyapandi 84. Masanam 85. Ganesan 86. Paraman 87. Perumal ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent consider the petitioners representation dated 14.01.2015 and the 6th respondent to take action against his subordinate i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti and the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station for their irregularities. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Surendran For Respondents : Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R8.