Dismissed

Bakkar, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC25 Sept 2018WP(MD)/18092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing the removal of encroachment on land classified as a lake and street. The court confirmed the impugned order, noting that the original revenue records were altered fraudulently to issue pattas, a cancellation which the petitioner accepted without question.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.08.2018 directing removal of encroachment is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.

Bakkar, Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.09.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶8

Bakkar

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Manamekudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1575/2017/A6 dated 03.08.2018 quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasundharam For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶14

[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.]

¶15

This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.08.2018, informing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made in S.F.No.288/2, corresponding to old S.F.No.219, originally classified as kulam (lake) and also the further encroachment made in S.F.No.288/3, corresponding to old S.F.No.219, originally classified as paathai (street).

¶16

2.Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land covered in S.No.288/2, corresponding to old S.No.219 of Kodikkulam Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, originally belonged to one M.K.Saibu of Kottaipattinam village and he was enjoying the property on the basis of patta No.421, granted in his favour. As he is a pattadar, he combined both S.Nos.288/2 and 288/4 and obtained panchayat approval from the Panchayat President of Kottaipattinam village. As the said M.K.Saibu divided the vacant site into 21 plots and also obtained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approval of the plots in the name of Periya Palli Nagar, Kodikulam, Kottaipattinam Village, the petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser,

¶17

¶18

purchased two plots viz., plot Nos.9 and 10 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 01.12.2012 for a valid sale consideration. From the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner. Later on, he has put up asbestos shed in plot No.10 and also obtained electricity service connection in his name. After all these, he has made an application for change of patta. On receipt of the said application, a joint patta was issued on 23.06.2015 vide the proceedings in PTR 548/15/A1 by the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk. That also shows that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser from the original vendor M.K.Saibu. In view thereof, making allegation against the petitioner that he is an encroacher of the land covered in S.Nos.288/2 and 288/3, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to the revenue records, including the patta issued originally in the name of his vendor M.K.Saibu and subsequently transferred in his name, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶19

3.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent along with additional typed set of papers, enclosing copies of 'A' register, natham settlement register and also the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, dated 18.07.2018, cancelling the patta wrongly issued in the name of the original vendor of the petitioner viz., M.K.Saibu, on the premise that patta has been obtained wrongly and fraudulently, some how altering S.No.288/2, classified as kulam (lake), another S.No.288/3, classified as paathai (street), which are corresponding to old S.No.219.

¶20

4.In support of the impugned order, the learned Special Government Pleader further submits that old S.No.219, measuring to an extent of 29.47.5 hectares situate at Kodikulam Village, Manamelkudi, has been classified as Arasu poramboke – natham. The said S.No.219 was taken up during natham settlement and subdivided into various survey numbers and reclassified. S.No.288/2, sarkar poramboke, having an extent of 0.33.5 ares, has been classified as kulam (lake). The land covered in S.No.288/3, sarkar poramboke, having an extent of 0.10.5 ares, has been classified as paathai (street) and this apart, further land in S.No.288/4, having an extent of 0.11.0 ares has been classified as ryat manai and patta for the same has been issued in favour the Trustee Matharasajith Taqwa. The records also clearly indicate that one M.K.Saibu, some how or other managed to make corrections in the revenue records and altered revenue entries in natham settlement survey adangal register, which was in the custody of the Village Administrative Officer and to that effect S.No.288/2 has been transferred in the mane of M.K.Saibu and two others vide the proceedings in PTR.453.D/15/A1 of Tahsildar Manamelkudi. Similar alterations also made in the register relating to S.Nos.288/3 and 288/4. Taking advantage of the wrong entries made in the revenue records, the said M.K.Saibu also formed a lay out of plots in S.No.288/2 measuring to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an extent of 0.33.5 ares into 21 house plots which is not permissible, as in the original revenue records, S.Nos.288/2 and

¶21

¶22

288/3 have been classified as kulam (lake) and paathai (street) respectively. The said M.K.Saibu had colluded with one Mr.Adaikalam, the then Village Administrative Officer of Kodikulam village and one Mohandas, the Deputy Tahsildar, in altering the revenue records. The said Deputy Tahsildar had issued proceedings in P.T.R.548/D/15/A1 dated 23.06.2012 as if there is an order of transfer of patta in respect of S.Nos.288/2 and 288/4 in favour of 19 persons.

¶23

5.In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the said wrong alteration made in respect of the aforementioned lands and obtaining fraudulent patta, one Sulthan came to this Court by filing writ petitions in WP (MD)No.12847 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.9943 of 2017, seeking removal of encroachment in various water bodies situated in Manamelkudi Taluk. Similar writ petition was also filed by one Fakrudeen Ali Ahammed in WP(MD)No.12770 of 2015 and this Court, considering the request for removal of encroachment in water bodies and taking note of the revenue records showing that S.Nos.288/2 and 288/3 are classified as kulam (lake) and paathai (street) respectively and also taking note of the fact that S.No.288/4 measuring to an extent of 0.11.0 ares has been classified as ryatwari manai and patta for the same has been issued in favour of the trustee of Matharasajith taqwa, has issued appropriate directions for removal of encroachments. After enquiry, it was found that the said M.K.Saibu had altered the revenue entries and therefore, the alteration made in the revenue records were set right by cancelling the patta issued in favour of the said M.K.Saibu. The said order has not been questioned either by M.K.Saibu or by the petitioner. Therefore, cancellation of patta having been accepted by the petitioner, nothing survives in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is before this Court, since there is a direction to remove the encroachment put up by him in water bodies and public street falling in S.Nos.288/2 and 288/3.

¶24

6.The order, cancelling the patta issued on 18.07.2018 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi clearly shows that the vendor of the petitioner M.K.Saibu colluded with two revenue officials viz., one Mr.Mohandas who was served at the relevant point of time as Deputy Tahsildar and Mr.Adaikalam who was served as Village Administrative Officer in Kodikulam Village, has wrongly altered the revenue records in respect of S.Nos.288/2 and 288/3 from kulam and paathai (lake and street) into ryatwari manai.

¶25

7.The learned Special Government Pleader also submits that a criminal complaint has also been filed on 19.07.2018 to take appropriate action against all these persons for meddling with the revenue records and also for the issuance of patta in respect of water bodies and public street. More over, the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.12770 of 2015 filed by one Fakrudeen Ali Ahammed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 therein to take appropriate action against the respondents 5 to 21 and prohibit them from encroaching and making construction upon the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in old No.219 and new S.Nos. 288/2, 288/33 and 288/4 situated at Nondichikulam area at Kodikulam Panchayat, Manamelkudi Taluk,

¶26

¶27

clearly shows that, this Court, based on one another order passed by the Division Bench in WP(MD)No.12847 of 2017 on 01.08.2017 directing the private respondents to produce all the relevant records before the Tahsildar to take further action in respect of similar request for removal of encroachment, disposed of the W.P(MD)No.12770 of 2015 stating that there is no further adjudication is necessary in the light of the order passed in WP(MD)No.12847 of 2017.

¶28

8.The respondent has enclosed a copy of 'A' register in the typed set of papers for reconsideration. A perusal thereof clearly shows that S.No.288/2 (Sarkar poramboke) which is equivalent to old S.No.219 has been classified as kulam (lake). Similarly, the land covered in S.No.288/3 (Sarkar poramboke), old S.No.219 has been classified as paathai (street) and this has been tampered with and altered as rayatwari manai by overwriting. In our considered opinion, patta has been cancelled only on the basis of the original revenue record namely 'A' register, which clearly shows that the aforementioned S.Nos.288/2 and 288/3 are classified as kulam (lake) and paathai (street). In addition thereto, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, although counter affidavit has been filed along with a copy of the order cancelling the patta, it is not known, why till date no one has questioned (either the vendor of the petitioner M.K.Saibu or the petitioner) in respect of cancellation. In view of the matter, we are unable to find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the respondent on 03.08.2018 is confirmed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP(MD) No.15982 of 2018 is closed.

¶29

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶31

To:

¶32

The Tahsildar, Manamekudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.K.BAALASUNDHARAM, Advocate, SR.No.86478 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 86758

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.18092 of 2018 25.09.2018

¶35

MJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KK/RSK/SAR-1/25.10.2018/4P-4C

Bakkar, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakkar, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.George Vs the District Collector

Karupasamy Vs the District Collector

K.Dhandapani, Vs the Election Commissioner

C.Dhanabal Vs the Central Registrar of

The Executive Officer, Vs the Karaikudi Municipality

V.Ragul Kannan, Vs the Principal District Judge