Disposed

A.Balaji v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Feb 2017WP/24872/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking patta for land allotted to him. The Court found no evidence of continuous possession or formal representation by the petitioner. The Court disposed of the petition, ordered the petitioner to file a representation, and directed the Collector to consider it within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to make a representation within 4 weeks; the Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks; status quo maintained.

A.Balaji Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2017 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶3

W.P. No. 24872 of 2013

¶4

& M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶5

& W.M.P.No.1324 of 2017

A.Balaji

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Vepanthattai Taluk, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide patta to the petitioner allotted land viz., to an extent of 2 acres in survey No.266, Eraiyur Village, Perambalur District within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Thilageswaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Diwakar, Spl.G.P.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to direct the respondents to provide patta to the land allotted to the petitioner viz., to an extent of 2 acres in survey No.266, Eraiyur Village, Perambalur District within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1997, the District Administration of Trichy(now Perambalur District) has orally allotted to an extent of 1.5 to 4 acres of revenue promboke land to each family in the Erayur village, Perambalur District, for doing agriculture, whereas the petitioner has been allotted 2 acres of land at Survey No.266. From 1979 onwards, the petitioner is paying revenue for the lands and he is in continuous possession of the land by doing agriculture.

¶18

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

¶19

On 15.05.2013, the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar has forwarded a recommendation by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1 9136/79, dated 15.05.1983 to the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, for issuance of patta to the said land. The said fact is revealed by a communication dated 30.03.1984 in Na.Ka.2/KA/63357/83, issued by the Director of Survey and Revenue Department.

¶20

The petitioner has cultivating the said land since 1999. On 14.12.2012, some revenue officials started to measure his cultivated field and tried to plant some flags. Therefore, the petitioner protested the same and gave representation to the 1^st respondent / District Collector. Thereafter, there was no threat for the petitioner. Again, during the year 2013, the officials threatened the petitioner to vacate the said land. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶21

The learned Special Government pleader has filed a detailed counter affidavit and as directed by this Court the 2^nd respondent appeared before the Court and filed his report. The petitioner is not at all continuously cultivating in the aforesaid land. They have leased out the land for a period of 3 to 6 years, to local farmers of Namaiyur and Eraiyur Villages by way of unregistered local agreement on collection of lease amount, which is against the Government norms.

¶22

The petitioner had encroached the revenue poramboke land in question at Eraiyur Revenue Village in Veppanthattai taluk and cultivated the same for some period prior to the year 1996 and they were issued 'B' memos. On verification, the District Revenue Officer, Perambalur District, cancelled the 'B' memos on 15.02.1996 and therefore all the encroachments were removed. The lands in question is not at all legally allotted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not made any representation for the issuance of patta, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

By considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the land was allotted to the petitioner in Survey No.266 in Perambalur District and he was not in possession of the said property. The petitioner cultivated in the said land for some period prior to the year 1996 and 'B' memo was issued. After verification, the District Revenue Officer, Perambalur District cancelled the 'B' memo on 15.02.1996 and therefore, all the encroachments were removed. Therefore, the petitioner was not in possession of the said land. Further, on the report of the second respondent, it reveals that the petitioner has leased out the aforesaid land to local farmers by way of unregistered legal agreement on

¶24

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

¶25

collection of lease amount. But there was no cultivation in the aforesaid land for the years between 2013 and 2015. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any records (viz., revenue records) before this Court, for showing his possession of the land or cultivation in the same. However, the respondent Department also had not produced any document to show that the aforesaid land has been taken by them .

¶26

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made any representation before the first respondent for grant of patta. Hence, at this stage the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Moreover, the petitioner is not in possession of the said property and hence, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

¶27

i) The petitioner shall make a representation to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

ii) Thereafter, the first respondent / Collector shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks. and

¶29

iii) Till such time, the status quo as on date, shall be maintained by the parties. 15. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar(CSVII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar pvs To 1. The District Collector, Perambalur, Perambalur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, Perambalur District. 3. The Tahsildar, Vepanthattai Taluk, Perambalur, Perambalur District +1 cc to the Government Pleader sr 10878

¶30

W.P. No. 24872 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 & W.M.P.No.1324 of 2017 kjl(co) aa24/03/2017

¶31

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

A.Balaji v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Balaji v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Vidya Alias Vidyawathi Vs the Commissioner

Palaniyammal, Vs The District Collector

A.Chithambaram Vs The Direct Revenue Officer

P.Muthukumaran Vs the Director General of

S.Kavunthurai, Vs the District Collector

S.Muttuvanchery, Vs the District Collector