W.P. No. 40187 of 2016
The High Court of Judicature at Madras issued the order in W.P. No. 40187 of 2016 on 16 December 2016, dismissing C. Parvathammal's request for reassignment of 0.52.5 hectare in Survey No. 136/2 at Nellumara Agraharam Village, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The case involved the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, and several land reforms and revenue authorities, but the Court did not direct them to transfer the land from the ninth respondent to the petitioner.
What the case concerned
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered C. Parvathammal's request for a direction to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Director of Land Reforms and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode. The petitioner wanted 0.52.5 hectare in Survey No. 136/2 reassigned from the ninth respondent's name to the petitioner's name under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
The land is recorded in the case as being at Nellumara Agraharam Village, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
Petitioner's position
C. Parvathammal claimed continuous possession and enjoyment for 40 years of:
- 09 cents in Survey No. 130/1.
- 0.52.5 hectare in Survey No. 136/2.
The petitioner stated that the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode had issued a notification for assignment of surplus land. Survey No. 130/1 was assigned to the petitioner, while Survey No. 136/2 was assigned to the ninth respondent.
The petitioner submitted a representation on 2 August 2016 seeking reassignment of Survey No. 136/2. The Director of Land Reforms and the District Collector initiated communications for an enquiry, but the petitioner said no progress followed.
Court's decision and reasons
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed W.P. No. 40187 of 2016 for two stated reasons:
- The Court recorded that the petitioner had received the Survey No. 130/1 assignment in 2004 but had not promptly submitted a representation or appeal concerning Survey No. 136/2. The Court treated the delay as 12 years.
- The petitioner relied on continuous possession but had not challenged the assignment order granted in favour of the ninth respondent.
The Court therefore refused to direct reassignment of Survey No. 136/2. It also ordered no costs.
Who may be affected
The decision directly concerns C. Parvathammal, the ninth respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department, the land reforms authorities and the Krishnagiri District revenue authorities named in the case. A person examining Survey No. 136/2 should note that this judgment did not grant reassignment to the petitioner or set aside the ninth respondent's assignment.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the High Court order Survey No. 136/2 to be reassigned to C. Parvathammal?
No. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the petition and did not direct reassignment of the 0.52.5 hectare.
Why was the reassignment request dismissed?
The Court cited the 12 year delay in seeking reassignment and the petitioner's failure to challenge the assignment order granted to the ninth respondent.
Did continuous possession give the petitioner a right to reassignment?
Not in this case. The Court said the petitioner could not seek reassignment based on continuous possession without challenging the ninth respondent's assignment order.
Which land had already been assigned to the petitioner?
The case records that 09 cents in Survey No. 130/1 had been assigned to the petitioner.
