A claim to restrain road construction and restore demolished shops concerned alleged encroachment on a public road. The Court admitted additional revenue documents by consent, upheld removal of the encroachment after due procedure, and dismissed the second appeal with costs, finding no substantial question of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 30-06-2017 Judgment delivered on : 11-08-2017
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Second Appeal No.188 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
S.Arulselvan .. Appellant/Plaintiffs
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Having Office at Collectorate,
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Kanchipuram.
3. The Executive Officer,
Kundrathur Town Panchayat,
Kundrathur,
Chennai 600 069 .. Respondents/Defendants
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the
judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2009
on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, against the
judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 made in O.S.No.261 of 2008
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur.
For Appellant .. Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy For Respondents .. Mr.T.Jayarama Raj, Govt. Advocate (CS) JUDGMENT The plaintiff who lost before the trial Court as also before the first appellate Court, is before this Court now by way of the present Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 in A.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kanchipuram.
notice and hence it was served by affixture. Therefore, according to the third defendant, when the plaintiff was very well aware about the removal of encroachments well before they were removed, there is no necessity on the part of the defendants to compensate the plaintiff and restore the suit premises to the original condition. According to the third defendant, they have already laid a road on the encroached portion, after removal of the encroachment ,i.e. where the buildings were demolished and now it is being used as a Road by the entire public.
there is specific plea in the written statement supra, apart from the fact that the lower appellate Court has categorically stated in terms of the sale deed and the partition deed Ex.A-1 sale deed and Ex.A-2 partition deed. There is no dispute with regard to the title and the right of the suit property and that the plaintiff has gradually encroached upon the public Road and put up a sun-shade and other door premises in the main Road by way of encroachment. Even the general public using the Road have given a complaint and the Government has verified the records and issued notice to the plaintiff in advance and took steps to demolish the same.
" ... ... I issued a notice to the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur to depute the Taluk Surveyor to assist me at the time of inspection of the suit property and the inspection was fixed at their request on 22.12.2012. I issued a notice to the counsel of both sides and proceeded to inspect the suit property with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, Sriperumbudur, I inspected the suit property and the suit property is identified in S.No.152/25. The Taluk Surveyor also present along with his field staffs with Village Administrative Officer and other survey materials and the property was identified. The and in S.No.152/25 has been measured and has been identified by the Surveyor and the suit property is included in patta No.133 registered in the name of the appellant and one Devakiammal and it measures 0.05.5 Sq.Mtr. and it has been on the ground used as Thar road and it is not a poramboke property and it is only a portion that has been identified is a patta land. There is no question of any encroachment as identified by the Survey Officials. .. ..."
been laid.
and ideas for creating the records or manipulating the records for consideration.
"7. However, before parting with this case, it would be useful to refer to the direction of this Court, in W.P.38432 of 2015, etc., wherein, by order dated 07.09.2016, this Court has observed that very many encroachments are found throughout the city of Chennai, which requires to be dealt with sternly, but for the ineffective steps taken by the authorities concerned, such encroachments would not have continued. It is high time that dynamic action needs to be taken by the authorities concerned so as to avoid public lands being usurped by unscrupulous elements. This Court, in the abovesaid writ petition, has given certain guidelines for the authorities to follow in respect of any encroachments being brought to its notice. The relevant portion of the order, for better clarity is extracted hereunder:
"12. Whenever it is brought to notice that there is land encroachment on the roads or in any other place or violation of construction, it is open to the authorities concerned to call for the following details from the violator by issuing appropriate notice:
(a) Registered Deed based on which the property has devolved upon the person;
(b) Extent of square feet mentioned in the Schedule property;
(c) Width of the road;
(d) Actual constructed area;
(e) Approved plan;
(f) Whether set back space has been provided as per the Plan/Rules."
authorities are entitled to remove the same in accordance with law, recovering the demolition costs from the petitioner.
"20. It is pertinent to note that recently, the First Bench of this Court (S.K.Kaul, CJ and R.Mahadevan,J) in Contempt Petition No.1769 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No.2166 of 2015 (Suo Motu), took up a matter pertaining to demolition of the violated portions of a building and insisted that the unauthorised constructions are decimated. Relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
"4. We have also perused the report of the Commissioner, who is present in Court. We have impressed upon him the importance of ensuring that there is atleast no continuing unauthorised construction by issuing stop work notices immediately when such unauthorised construction is detected rather than waiting for comparison of the plans. We have also emphasised the importance of:
(a) Checking the buildings from the basement, ground floor onwards, so that the set backs are adhered to;
(b) Ensure that the on-gong construction complies with the norms;
(c) The delinquent officers are brought to book not by mere consure, stoppage of increment, but by more severe consequences like compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. We say so, as despite, mammoth amount of unauthorised construction, we are informed that not a single person has suffered the punishment of dismissal from service or even compulsory retirement atleast for the last five years.
(d) Not to let any unnecessary interference with his work by the persons, who have nothing to do with his job and that he should be able to do his task without fear or favour, for which necessary Court protection is available." "
Order 41: Appeals from original decrees:
Rule 27: Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if—
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
Order 41: Appeals from original decrees:
Rule 33: Power of Court of Appeal: The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees:
Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order."
"38. ... ...
(1) If the encroachment is on road or road margins, vested in Municipalities, the removal if any is to be effected only after following the procedure contemplated in Chapter IX of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and more particularly the provisions contained in Section 182 and Section 183 (6). Before taking action under Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act, notice in writing giving atleast two weeks time should be served and, if the person avoids to receive the notice, such notice can be effected by affixure. However, notice by any other means, such as through public announcement or beating of drums or by general notice in newspapers, may not be sufficient.
(3) Payment of property tax, provisions of water connection or electricity by themselves cannot be construed as conferring any independent right, if the encroachment is otherwise unauthorised.
(4) The above directions and observations are also applicable to encroachment in respect of road or road margins coming within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation or Town and Village Panchayats, in which event, necessary action can be taken by the concerned authorities by following the relevant provisions of law applicable to such Corporation or Panchayats.
(6) If the encroachment is on the land belonging to the Local Authorities, but such land is not part of the road or road margin or roadside land, eviction can be effected by following the procedure contemplated in law, namely, either by taking recourse to the Tamil Nadu Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 or any other law applicable or otherwise by taking recourse to Civil Courts and not by use of unilateral force.
(7) So far as the encroachment on the land belonging to the Government is concerned, action for eviction if any can be taken only by the appropriate authority and by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
.. .. ...."
"Order 41 Rule 27 CPC:
Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. (Vide: K.Venkataramiah Vs. A.Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram Vs. Rameshwaralal, 1975 (3) SCC 698 = AIR 1975 SC 479 and Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy, 1979 (2) SCC 601 = AIR 1979 SC 553).
under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal Vs. C.M.Armugam, AIR 1969 SC 101).
only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision- making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. (Vide: State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, 2004 (5) SCC 568 = 2008 (2) SCC (Cri) 49 = AIR 2004 SC 1794; State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, 2008 (11) SCC 205 = 2008 (2) SCC (L & S) 1093; Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, 2010 (3) SCC 732 = AIR 2010 SC 1285; and Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, (2010 (13) SCC 336 = 2010 (4) SCC (Civ) 904).
"28. .. ... We are of the opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its insistence by leading other evidence."
(emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Basayya I.Mathad Vs. Rudrayya S.Mathad, 2008 (3) SCC 120.
K.Venkataramiah Vs. A.Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 SC 1526, while dealing with the same issue held: (AIR p.1529, para 13):
"13. It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overlook the provisions of clause (2) of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence .... The omission to record reason must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. Even so, we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory."
(emphasis added)
In the said case, the court after examining the record of the case came to the conclusion that the appeal was heard for a long time and the application for taking additional evidence on record was filed during the final hearing of the appeal. In such a fact-situation, the order allowing such application did not vitiate for want of reasons.
Stage of Consideration :
merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193; and Natha Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, 1976 (3) SCC 28 = AIR 1976 SC 1053).
" ... The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by Order 41, Rule 27, are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal.
.... Under Rule 27, Clause (1)(b) it is only where the appellate Court "requires" it (i.e. finds it needful). …… The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent"
.... It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing, and under Rule 29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. .... the power so conferred upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it
should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case…”
(emphasis added)
(See also: Indirajit Pratab Sahi Vs. Amar Singh, 1922-23 (50) IA 183 = AIR 1928 P.C. 128).
"7. .. ... If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent…….
(emphasis added)
both sides, as ordered in C.M.P.Nos.6827 to 6829 of 2017 in S.A.No.188 of 2014, and hence, the examination of Tahsildar has been dispensed with, by order dated 28.06.2017 passed in those C.M.Ps. To clear the doubt with regard to the property in question and with regard to the old S.No.124/2 or 124/12 and New S.No.152/25, the documents have been marked by consent and based on Ex.B-7 and other documents now being marked in this Second Appeal, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as sought for in the suit.
"10. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to have an understanding of what a natham land means. Major Law Lexicon of P.Ramanatha Aiyar (Fourth Edition 2010 Vol.IV) describes "nattum" as follows:
"That part of the village lands on which the houses of mirasidars are built, as distinct from the lands attached to the village, a village especially one inhabited by Sudras in opposition of an agraharam, one inhabited by brahmins."
"20. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs. Raghavan, 2012 (1) CTC 280, a Division Bench of this Court pointed out that gramanatham is the village habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside. They are also known as house sites. They are classified as gramanatham to differentiate them from inam lands, ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands, which vest in the Government. Therefore, after quoting with approval, the decisions in Rengaraja Iyengar Vs. Achikannau Ammal, 1959 (2) MLJ 513; A.Thillaivanam.A.K. and another Vs. District Collector, Chengai Anna District and three others, 1998 (3) LW 603; and A.Srinivasan Vs. Tahsildar, 2010 (3) MLJ 72, the Division Bench reiterated the position that gramanatham is not vested in the Government.
Mr.T.R.Mani, learned counsel was extracted by S.Ashok Kumar, J in paragraph 8 as follows:
"Learned Senior Counsel also clarified that in Natham, first occupier will be treated as the owner and no Patta will be given to them. Patta is issued only for assessed lands and it is the settled law. That is why, Natham is called as Poramboke, i.e. "natham poramboke" which means "poram (g[wk;) is outside; "poke (nghf;F)" is revenue record. Thus the word "poramboke lands" means the lands which is not assessed to revenue records and it is outside the revenue accounts. Likewise, "gramanatham" is defined in the Law Lexicon as "ground set apart on which the house of village may be built." Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil Lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the nonbrahmins; or land reserved as house-sites; etc. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on very many decisions of this High Court as well as the Apex Court to the effect that Poramboke does not include natham and gramanatham never vest with the Government, which will be referred to in the latter part of this judgment."
"26. At this juncture, this Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that even during the hearing of this case, the State of Tamil Nadu is seriously affected by unprecedented floods, i.e. during November 2015, and because of that, number of people were dead and many people lost their property, is compelled to put its views that the entire loss due to the flood was due to maladministration and the prevailing practices by the authorities as almost all the water bodies and water courses were allowed to be encroached upon resulting in reduction in their flood storing and carrying capacity, forcing the water to deviate from its regular course and enter the residential areas causing devastating effects. The authorities have permitted construction of houses in the water bodies. This resulted in inundation of these areas during flood and all these houses submerged under the flood water. This shows that despite the orders of the Court, the authorities pretend to act swiftly in
removing the encroachments but only in a selective manner and not in a planned and determined manner.
"12. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by one Mr.L.Krishnan seeking for a direction against the Government and the Revenue Officials to remove encroachments made by certain private parties in a Odai Poramboke in Villupuram District. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the Division Bench pointed out that ponds, tanks and lakes have been an essential part of the people's natural resources, however, in
recent years, these have been illegally encroached by unscrupulous persons and this has had adverse effect on the lives of the people. ... ... ... It was further pointed out that is is imperative that such natural resources provided for water shortage facilities are maintained by the State Government by taking all possible steps both by taking preventive measures as well as by removal of unlawful encroachments. After referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamal Devi reported in 2001 (6) SCC 496, it was held that the endeavour of the State should be to protect the material resources like Forests, Tanks, Ponds etc., in order to maintain ecological balance, which would pave the way to provide a healthy environment and enable the people to enjoy a quality life, which is essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that in the State of Tamil Nadu having regard to the precarious water situation prevailing in the major part of the year, it is imperative that such noted water shortage resources, such as tanks, odai, oornis, canals etc. are not obliterated by encroachers. Reference was also made to Article 48A of the Constitution. The Division Bench after referring to the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharathi Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1973 (4) SCC 225; Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund Vs. UOI, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 549; M.C.Metha Vs. UOI reported in 1997 (3) SCC 715, issued certain directions. The directions issued were two fold, firstly, a positive direction to remove the encroachments over odai poramboke which was complained of in the said Public Interest Litigation, secondly, a direction to the State Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated.
would not be in public interest to dispossess the encroachers and directed the Grama Panchayat to recover the cost of the land, thus regularising the illegality. On appeal by some third parties to the Commissioner, the order of the Collector was set aside, holding that the Grama Panchayat was colluding with the encroachers. The Commissioner held that the village pond has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and cannot be encroached upon by any private parties. Against the order of the Comm, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court which was dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. This order was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was pointed out that the appellants therein were trespassers who illegally encroached on the Grama Panchayat lands by using muscle power and money power in collusion with officials of the Grama Panchayat and such kind of patent illegality must not be condoned and even if houses have been built on the land in question they must be ordered to be removed and the possession of the land must be handed back to the Grama Panchayat. It was further pointed out that many State Governments have been issuing orders permitting allotment of Grama Sabha land to private persons on payment of some money and all such Government Orders are illegal and should be ignored. ... .... 20. In the case of R.Lakshmnan (Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD). No.1496 of 2014, dated 06.08.2014, R.Lakshmnan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others), a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court to restore the capacity of the water bodies as on date of the 1923 survey. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the Government to issue appropriate direction which should be mandatory in nature to all local bodies, including Corporation, Municipalities and Panchayats not to grant any planning permission for any construction that is put up in a water body and not to grant approval for any lay out or building plan, if the land is located either in part or in whole, in a water body and directing the Government to contemplate issuing of an order under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act making it mandatory to enclose a certificate of the Revenue Authority along with building plan application, certifying that no part of the land is located in a water body and wrong information if provided, the person who issued the certificate to be held responsible. .. ...
Land Administration states that encroachments in poramboke lands like water sources/courses, gracing grounds, temple lands, kalam, etc., are considered as highly objectionable and these encroachments have to be evicted. The Revenue, Public Works and Highways Department authorities and local bodies like Municipalities and Corporation have been empowered to evict unauthorised encroachments after giving due notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for which a District Level Committee under the Chairman of the District Collector has been constituted. .. ..
"4. Having considered the specific contentions, we are of the considered view that the conclusion of the High Court was clearly illegal. It is seen that the land acquired was for a public purpose. Admittedly, the same land was acquired in the year 1963 for building a PWD office and after construction a compound wall was also constructed to protect the building. As found by the Civil Court, on adducing evidence in a suit that the Department had encroached upon the respondent's land which was directed to be demolished and delivery of possession to be given. It is seen that when that land was needed for a public purpose, i.e. as part of public office, the State is entitled to exercise its power of eminent domain and would be justified to acquire the land according to law. Section 4(1) was, therefore, correctly invoked to acquire the land in dispute. It is true that the State had not admitted that its officers had encroached upon the respondent's land and had carried the matter in appeal. The finding of the civil Court was that the property belongs to the respondent. The factum of the
action under the Act implies admission of the title of the respondent to the extent of land found by the Civil Court to be an encroachment. Though the State chose to file the appeal which was pending, better judgment appears to have prevailed on the State to resort to the power of eminent domain instead of taking a decision on merits from a Court of Law. In view of the fact that the PWD office building was already constructed and a compound wall was needed to make the building safe and secure and construction was already made, which is a public purpose, the exercise of power of eminent domain is perfectly warranted under law. It can neither be said to be colourable exercise of power nor an arbitrary exercise of power."
"4. In view of the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs have been able to establish their title and the Courts below were justified in declaring plaintiffs' title. As has been stated earlier the only piece of evidence on which the Courts below relied upon to decree the plaintiffs' suit is the alleged order made by the Assistant Settlement Officer directing correction of the record of right. The order in question is not there on record, but the plaintiffs relied upon the register where the correction appears to have been given effect to. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the entry in the settlement papers recording somebody's name could create or extinguish title in favour of the person concerned ? It is to be seen that the disputed land originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the owner of the land in the record of right prepared in the year 1949-50. In the absence of the very order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing necessary correction to be made in favour of the plaintiffs, it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. To our query as to whether there is any other document on the basis of which the plaintiffs can claim title over the disputed land, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents could not
point out any other document apart from the alleged correction made in the register pursuant to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. In our considered opinion, the Courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs' title on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue papers. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in all the three forums are set aside. The plaintiffs' suit stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
that they can teach and instil to their children. Is there anything wrong in telling the children that their parents is/are thief / Land Grabbers ?
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cs
Copy to
1. The Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.
2. The District Munsif, Sriperumbudur.
3. The District Collector,
Having Office at Collectorate,
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, Kanchipuram.
5. The Executive Officer,
Kundrathur Town Panchayat,
Kundrathur, Chennai 600 069.
6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
7. The Superintendent Blind School
Poonamallee Chennai
+1 cc to Mr.t.Sathiyamoorthy Advocate sr 58424
+1 cc to the Special Govt Pleader sr 58841
S.A.No.188 of 2014
br(co)
aa09/10/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Was the plaintiff entitled to restrain road construction and compel restoration of demolished structures on the disputed land?
Could additional revenue documents be admitted in second appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?
Did the concurrent findings disclose perversity or a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.P.Aravinda Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and othersRelied on¶36
M.P.Aravinda Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and others, W.P.No.28311 of 2016, dated 04.10.2016
W.P.No.38432 of 2015, etc., batch, dated 07.09.2016Relied on¶45
M/s.Aara Silk, rep. by its Partner Vs. The Principal Director, Southern CommandRelied on¶48
W.P.No.29985 of 2016, dated 29.09.2016
Ramaraju.T. Vs. The State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶69
2005 (2) CTC 741 (FB) (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) (Ramaraju.T. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu)
Union of India Vs. Ibrahim UddinApplied¶80
2012 (8) SCC 148 (Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin) · Who else cites this
A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶130
2013 (2) CWC 26 (A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and othersRelied on¶138
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, in W.P.No.1295 of 2009, dated 27.11.2015
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and othersRelied on¶145
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, in W.P.No.1294 of 2009, by judgment dated 30.10.2015
State of U.P. Vs. Keshav Prasad SinghReferred¶157
1995 (5) SCC 587 (State of U.P. Vs. Keshav Prasad Singh) · Who else cites this
State of H.P. Vs. Keshav RamRelied on¶161
AIR 1997 SC 2181 (State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram) · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
S.Arulselvan
The District Collector
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department
The Executive Officer, Kundrathur Town Panchayat
S.VAIDYANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
