Allowed

The Church of South India v. the Secretary

Madras HC2 Mar 2017WP(MD)/12448/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the respondents are bound by the final civil court decree regarding land classification. Despite the State's contemplation of filing a second appeal after a long delay, the Court dismissed the objection and directed the District Collector to issue patta within eight weeks by changing the land classification from poramboke to patta land.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to issue patta for Survey Nos. 1247/3, 1247/4, 1247/5 by changing classification from poramboke to patta land within eight weeks. No costs.

The Church of South India Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.03.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12448 of 2011

¶7

The Church of South India Trust Assosciation, Kanyakumari Diocese, Rep. By Bishop of Kanyakumari Diocese Rt.Rev. Devakadatsham,Bishop House, Nagercoil – 1. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam,

¶11

Chepauk, Chennai.

¶12

3.The Principal Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai.

¶13

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil District. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue patta to the petitioner for the land measuring an extent of 2 acres 9.235 cents in Survey No.1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5 of Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District by changing the classification from poramboke land to pattta land measuring an extent of 2 acres 9.235 cents in Survey No.1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5 of Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Devaraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagadevan Special Government Pleader

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue patta to the petitioner for the land measuring an extent of 2 acres 9.235 cents in Survey No.1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5 of Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District by changing the classification from poramboke land to pattta land measuring an extent of 2 acres 9.235 cents in Survey No.1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5 of Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶21

2,Heard both sides.

¶22

The brief facts of the case is as follows:

¶23

The petitioner association is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 2 acres and 9.235 cents in Survey Nos. 1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5 at Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk. According to the petitioner, during re-survey the petitioner's subject land was wrongly classified as 'poramboke lands' and hence, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.968 of 1981 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil for declaration to cancel the wrong classification of poramboke lands and consequently direct the respondents to change the classification as 'patta lands'. By judgment and decree dated 11.11.1986, the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner. The defendants in the said suit was the State of Tamilnadu represented by the District Collector, Nagercoil. As against the decree of the trial court, the fourth respondent herein had filed an appeal in A.S.No. 3 of 1988 before the Sub Court, Nagercoil, which also came to be dismissed on 08.12.1989. As such, the decree of the trial court became final. Hence, the petitioner had made several requests seeking for re-classification and for consequential direction to issue patta in favour of the petitioner, in which no orders have been passed till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Government, no Second Appeal has been filed till date and hence, the respondents are duty bound to re-classify the lands and issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the respondents are contemplating to file a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the year 1989 and hence submitted that they are unable to give effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the lands in

¶26

¶27

question are classified as water bodies and therefore, the petitioner's request cannot be considered.

¶28

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

¶29

Though the respondents have raised several grounds in the writ petition, I am unable to appreciate the said grounds for the simple reason that the orders passed by the trial court in O.S. No.968 of 1981 as confirmed by the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No 3 of 1988 has become final. I am rather surprised on the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader that they are contemplating to file a Second Appeal after a period of 28 years and on that ground, the petitioner's request, which is based on the decree of the trial court, is being kept in abeyance. It is needless to point out that the respondents are duty bound to obey the orders of the civil court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that after the appeal filed by the Government before the Sub Court was dismissed, they had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8894 of 2005 seeking for a direction to the fifth respondent to issue patta in their favour in the strength of the judgment and decree pronounced by the civil court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.10.2005, with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the judgment and decree of the civil court.

¶31

The said order was not complied and hence, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No. 93 of 2006. When the said Contempt Petition came up for hearing, the fifth respondent had submitted that the Director of Re-survey and Settlement alone is the competent authority to re-classify the lands and therefore, the contempt petition came to be closed by recording their statement. Consequently, the petitioner had approached the Director of Re-survey and Settlement through representation dated 19.07.2007 and the said representation has not been acted upon by the respondent till date.

¶32

Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file another writ petition in W.P.No.9521 of 2007 which came to be dissposed of by an order dated 20.11.2007 with a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within the period of two months and this order has also not been complied with.

¶33

It is rather unfortunate that all the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have totally disregarded the following orders:

¶34

a) The judgment and decree passed in O.S. NO.968 of 1981

¶35

¶36

dated 11.11.1986.

¶37

b)The judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 1988 dated 08.12.1989.

¶38

c) The order passed in W.P.No.8894 of 2005 dated 20.10.2005

¶39

d) The order passed in Cont.P.No.93 of 2006 dated 6.2.2007 e)The order passed in W.P.NO.9521 of 2007 dated 20.11.2007.

¶40

The State of Tamilnadu was the defendant in the said Original Suit filed before the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. As such, all the Departments under the State of Tamilnadu were bound by the decree. The decree is very specific to the effect that the respondents had to cancel the wrong classification of the Poramboke lands and change the classification into the patta land. The only ground on which the petitioner's request is not being considered is that the respondents are contemplating to file a Second Appeal with the application for condoning the delay of 28 years.

¶41

I am unable to understand as to how the respondents have prolonged the re-classification for so many years even without taking steps to file a Second Appeal. I do not intend to pass any remarks with regard to the merits of the grounds raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents for the simple reason that whatever be the defence available to the respondents, still they are bound by the decree of the trial court, which has become final. On this sole ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The District Collector, Kanykumari District is directed to issue a patta in favour of the petitioner for the land comprised in Survey Nos. 1247/3, 1247/4 and 1247/5, Nagercoil Village, Agatheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District by changing it's classification from Poramboke lands to patta lands. Such an exercise shall be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶45

/True Copy/

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

¶50

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶51

2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration,

¶52

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The Principal Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai.

¶53

4.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶54

The Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil District.

¶55

+1cc to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.12316 +1cc to M/s. R.DEVARAJ Advocate in SR. No.12382

¶56

CM/ JS/MR/27.03.2017/5P-8C

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.12448 of 2011 02.03.2017

¶58

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

The Church of South India v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Church of South India v. the Secretary

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

Rahim Brothers Middle School, Vs the District Elementary

Rml.Mani Vs the District Collector

M. Kalyani, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Malairajan, Vs the Supdt. of Police

R.Banumathi Vs the District Collector

S. Sekar, Vs the Secretary to the