Disposed

S.Thambi, v. Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC26 Apr 2016WP/8807/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging an order denying patta. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for patta on merits, considering prior recommendations and the petitioner's long residence and tax payments, without granting it summarily.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for grant of patta on merits and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

S.Thambi, Vs Corporation of Chennai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.8807 of 2016

S.Thambi

... Petitioner

vs.

1.Corporation of Chennai
rep. by its Commissioner,
Rippon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2.District Revenue Officer,
Land and Property Department,
Chennai Corporation,
Chennai 600 003.
3.The Tahsildar,
Fort-Thandiarpet Taluk,
Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the letter in Nee.Ma.o.thoo.Na.Ka.No.E8/1276/2012 dated 20.06.2012 issued by the second respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the recommendations dated 28.09.1994 read with communication dated 05.09.1994 issued by the third respondent and grant patta to the site in Revenue Survey No.1802/42 to the extent of 1650 sq.ft to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nagasaila

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, challenging the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the second respondent and consequently, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders with regard to grant of patta in respect of the site in Revenue Survey No.1802/42 measuring to an extent of 1650sq.ft to the petitioner, in the

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

light of the recommendations dated 28.09.1994 read with communication dated 05.09.1994 issued by the third respondent.

¶15

The case of the petitioner, as averred in the writ petition is as follows:

¶16

2.1 The petitioner is residing at No.8A, Periyapalayathaman Koil Street, 6th lane, Mulakotharam, Chennai-600 021 for more than 70 years and he was employed in the Chennai Corporation. While so, the Revenue survey No.1802 in the Village of Tondiarpet in the District of Madras was assigned for housing purpose to the people belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community and depressed classes. As the petitioner belongs to Adi Dravidar community, he is residing in Revenue S.No.1802/42, which comes within the land assigned for Adi Dravidar community. The entire area is a slum area. As early as in the year 1933 itself, assignments were given to many individuals in that area. However, the assignment orders were not issued to some individuals due to oversight and the petitioner is one such person.

¶17

2.2 In 1972, the respondents had initiated proceedings to lease out the land to the petitioner, for which, a notice was issued calling for objections from the general public within a period of 15 days, failing which, the lease would be granted to the petitioner. However, no lease order was eventually given to the petitioner.

¶18

2.3 Thereafter, the third respondent, by his communication dated 28.09.1994 addressed to the District Collector, Chennai, has recommended to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of his land measuring to an extent of 1650 sq.ft in S.No.1802/42 as he was residing in that area for more than 40 years and was also paying the house tax and the electricity charges from the year 1985 onwards. In the said communication, the third respondent has also pointed out that the people belonging to the Adi Dravidar community, living in that area were issued patta in respect of their respective lands and the petitioner alone was not issued with patta. However, till date, no patta has been issued to the petitioner.

¶19

2.4 In the mean while, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 6.6.2008 under section 220 r/w section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1991 to vacate and hand over the possession of the property within a period of seven days. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP.No.19235/2008 before this court. By order dated 08.08.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 6.6.2008. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.6.2012 to the first respondent requesting to issue a no objection certificate

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

to the third respondent in order to issue a patta in respect of his land in SF.No.1802/42, to which, he received a reply dated 20.06.2012 from the second respondent, stating that as per the records maintained by the Chennai Corporation, the land in S.F.No.1802/42, Division No.28 is a public land belonging to Chennai Corporation and is allotted for public utility and therefore, a no objection certificate could not be issued to him. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition for the above stated relief.

¶22

When the matter came up for admission on 09.03.2016, notice was taken on behalf of the respondents. However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶23

Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that patta has been issued to various persons belonging to Adi Dravidar community, who are residing in the land in S.F.No.1802, whereas, no patta was issued to the petitioner, who is also residing in the same area. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the claim made by the petitioner, has invited the attention of this court to the recommendations made in the communication bearing No.A1/8924/94 dated 28.09.1994 addressed to the District Collector, Chennai, wherein, the third respondent has recommended to issue patta to the petitioner.

¶24

For better understanding, the recommendations made by the third respondent in the said communication are extracted hereunder:

¶25

@ghh;itapy; fz;l fojj;jpy; jpU/jk;gp vd;gth; jhd; FoapUf;Fk; muR epyj;jpw;F gl;lh nfhhp kD bra;Js;shh;/ ,e;j epyk; ,t;tYtyf epue;ju epyg;gjpntl;oy; fPH;f;fz;lthW cs;sJ/

¶26

g[/vz;/ 1802-42 ? jz;ilahh;ngl;il tp!;jPuzk; 0/01/0433 rJu mo chpkjhuh; khefuhl;rp bghJ

¶27

nkw;fz;l g[yj;jpy; kDjhuh; jpU/jk;gp mth;fs;. 0/1650 rJu mo epyj;jpid Mf;fpukzk; bra;J. mjpy; br';fy; Th; vGg;gp Xiy Tiunghl;L trpj;J tUfpwhh;/ ,e;j ,lj;jpy; md;dhh; 40 Mz;Lfshf thH;e;J tUfpwhh; vd;W bjhpfpwJ/ 1985k; Mz;oypUe;J ,e;j , lj;jpw;F tPl;L thpa[k; kpd;rhu fl;lzKk; brYj;jp tUfpwhh;/ fle;j 40 Mz;Lfshf Mf;fpukdjhuhpd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Ug;gjhy; md;dhUf;F tPl;L kid xg;gilg;g[ K:yk; g[y vz;/1802-42y; cs;s 0/1650 rJu mo epyj;jpid tH';fyhk; vd ghpe;Jiu bra;fpnwd;/ ,g;gFjpapy; trpf;Fk; kf;fs; jhH;j;jg;gl;l Mjpjpuhtpl kf;fs;/ vy;nyhUf;Fk; Vw;fdnt tPl;Lkid xg;gilg;g[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuUf;F ,Jtiu

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

xg;gilg;g[ bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ kDjhuUk; jhH;j;jg;gl;l ,e;J Mjpjpuhtplh; ,dj;ijr; nrh;e;jjhy; ,ytrkhf tPl;Lkid xg;gilg;g [ bra;ayhk; vd ghpe;Jiu bra;fpnwd;/

¶30

epyj;jpid fhl;Lk; tiuglk;. xg;gilg;g[ Kd;bkhHpt[ kw;Wk; tprhuiz Fwpg;g[ Mfpait ,j;Jld; ,izj;jDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/@

¶31

In my considered view, by virtue of the said recommendations, the petitioner's request seeking patta in respect of his land occupied by him, ought to have been considered by the authority concerned. However, the impugned order dated 20.06.2012 has been passed by the second respondent, stating that the land in question was required for public convenience and therefore, no objection certificate could not be issued for grant of patta to the petitioner.

¶32

In fact, several persons belonging to Adi Dravidar Community residing in the land in S.F.No.1802, have been given patta, but the petitioner alone was singled out. Apart from that, the impugned order has been passed on 20.06.2012 to the effect that the land in question was allotted for public convenience, whereas, till date, the same was not utilised for such purpose. Even as per the contention of the petitioner, he is residing in the said land for more than 70 years and is paying the house tax and electricity charges from 1985 onwards. In such circumstances, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's request seeking patta in respect of his land in S.F.No.1802/42.

¶33

Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner to submit a fresh representation enclosing all the documents in support of his claim, along with a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submitting such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as all the necessary parties, if any and pass appropriate order with regard to grant of patta in respect of his land in R.S.No.1802/42 in Tondiarpet Village, measuring to an extent of 1650sq.ft., on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the recommendations made in the letter bearing No.A1/8924/94 dated 28.09.1994 issued by the third respondent to the District Collector, Chennai, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.Corporation of Chennai
rep. by its Commissioner,
Rippon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2.District Revenue Officer,
Land and Property Department,
Chennai Corporation,
Chennai 600 003.
3.The Tahsildar,
Fort-Thandiarpet Taluk,
Chennai 600 003.
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.26314
+1cc to Mrs.D.Nagasaila, Advocate sr.25980
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 26344 (3/6/16)
W.P.No.8807 of 2016
lrs(CO)
srg(03/05/2016)

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Thambi, v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thambi, v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Murugesan, Vs The Inspector of Police

V.P.Mohan Kumar, Vs The Tahsildar

Dr.Keerthika.S. Vs Government of Tamil nadu

Mrs.S.Gomathy Vs The Chief Controlling Revenue

M/s.Alliance Projects Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

J.Myvanna Kumar, Vs The Commissioner