AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner is a registered association viz., Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Central Association. There are
170 members in the Association. It is stated that for the benefit of the members of the Association, they purchased 9 acres of land in Survey No.
109, No. 32, Karanai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District by an unregistered sale deed dated 26.12.1997 from one Arunachalam
for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,47,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty seven thousand only). The unregistered sale deed is enclosed in the typed set
of papers.
In the unregistered sale deed dated 26.12.1997 filed by the petitioner, the land is described as Odai Poramboke. It is not clear as to how the
said Arunachalam has title over Odai Poramboke. The petitioner has enclosed a recommendation dated 31.08.2010 of the Revenue Inspector,
Kelambakkam recommending for assignment of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner.
Based on the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant
assignment of the said land in Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet Taluk No. 32, Karnai Village S. No. 109, 9 acres of land in favour of petitioner
Association and to forbear the 4th respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 4th respondent, the President of the Panchayat is objecting for the assignment of the
said land. It is submitted that the land has to be assigned to the Association as they have purchased the said land for providing house sites to its
members.
On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner cannot seek as a matter of right for assignment of
the land. The petitioner Association purchased the land at their own risk since their vendor Arunachalam has no title to sell Odai Poramboke. The
learned Special Government Pleader has further submitted that only if there is a statutory right, the petitioner can ask for enforcement of the same
as held by the Division of this Court in M. Solaikannan Vs. The Cabinet Secretary to the Union Cabinet, Union Secretariat, The National Security
Advisor to the Honourable Prime Minister, Prime Minister''s Secretariat and The Foreign Secretary, Union of India .
Paragraph 22 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:-
In the considered opinion of this Court, unless the Petitioner establishes that he is having a specific legal right and the Respondents are also
under the statutory obligation to carry out their duties and in the event of their failure to do so, Mandamus may be issued to compel to do
something.
Heard both sides.
As per the unregistered sale deed enclosed in the typed set of papers, the land measuring 9 acres is described as Odai Poramboke. It was said
to have been purchased from one Arunachalam. Based on the sale deed, the petitioner approached the Village Administrative Officer,
Kelambakkam village and he recommended for assignment of the land stating that it is not a water body. The same is also endorsed by the
Revenue Inspector vide proceedings in O.Mu. 536 dated 31.08.2010.
It is not clear as to how the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector can issue such letters recommending assignment of Odai
Poramboke stating that there is no water body in the said land. As rightly stated by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner has no
statutory right to seek for assignment of the land. The petitioner has not cited any provision seeking for such assignment. There is no merit in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. A direction is issued to the first respondent to take appropriate action against the
concerned Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector, who recommended for assignment of Odai Poramboke. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.