Dismissed

S. Sivaraman v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Nov 2019WP/13915/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders cancelling his patta and declaring purchased land as Reserved Forest. Court held that since land was notified as Reserve in 1969, Forest Department owns it. Without challenging the creation notification, challenge to departmental orders is barred. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

S. Sivaraman Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :28.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.13915 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2011
S.Sivaraman ..Petitioner
vs
1. The District Collector
Tiruvallur District,
At Tiruvallur.
2. The District Forest Officer
Tiruvallur District
Tiruvallur.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruttani Taluk
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Forest Officer
Tiruttani Forest Range
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.
5. The Village Administrative Officer
Athipattu Village
Tiruttani Taluk
Tiruvallur District. ..Respondents
Prayer:

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relevant to the order in Na.Ka.No.3953/2011/V dated 10.05.2011 passed by the 2^nd respondent and Na.Ka.No.20/2010-2011 dated 24.05.2011 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the rule of law and natural justice.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relevant to the order in Na.Ka.No.3953/2011/V dated 10.05.2011 passed by the 2^nd respondent and Na.Ka.No.20/2010-2011 dated 24.05.2011 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the rule of law and natural justice.

¶11

The petitioner has purchased a property situated in Survey No.246/2A1 totally to an extent of 32.73 acres of Athipattu Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District from his vendor. Since from the date of purchase of the property, as on today, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequent to the purchase of the above said land, patta was issued in Patta No.432 in the name of the petitioner by the Assistant Tahsildar, Tiruttani and all the revenue records viz., Patta, Chitta and Adangal clearly shows that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. The Forest Department have no right over the said property. Whileso, on 03.06.1996, out of 32.73 acres, the petitioner sold 7.84 aces of land to one Mr.Gul Mohamed and the same was registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvelankadu in document No.978 of 1996. On 05.05.2011, one Anandan, who is the registered power of attorney of the petitioner sent a representation to the 2^nd respondent / District Forest Officer to demark the patta land. On receipt of the said letter, the 2^nd respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3953/2011/V dated 10.05.2011 stated that already the land situated in Survey No.246/2A1 totally to an extent of 49.83 acres of land which was declared as Reserve Land through the notification by the Government in Gazette Publication on 01.05.1969. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent through his proceedings dated 10.05.2011 directed the the 1^st respondent to cancel the patta issued to those persons who have purchased the said property. Pursuant to the said order, the 4^th respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.20/2010 dated 24.05.2011 declared the land situated in Survey No.246/2A1 totally to an extent of 49.83 acres as a Reserved Land which absolutely belongs to the Forest Department. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had purchased a property from his vendor for a valuable sale consideration and continuously, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property by way of revenue documents viz., Patta, Chitta and Adangal. Hence, the petitioner is having prescribed title over the property. Therefore, the order of the 4^th respondent is legally unsustainable.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned Government Advocate filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the official respondent.

¶15

A perusal of the counter affidavit, it reveals that the Survey No.246/2 of Athipattu Village over an area of 49.83 acres in Tiruttani Taluk of Tiruvallur District was declared as “Reserved Land” as on 1969 and as per Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act gives powers to Government to make rules in connection with protection of land at the disposal of Government. Under rule 5-A General Rules for the management of Reserved and Unreserved land i.e rules in Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882. Even as per Rule 5-A, the Collector of the district, with previous approval of the Board of Revenue, may declare in respect of any village by a notification in the District Gazette. However, in respect of the reserved land, the Forester is not a competent authority to issue No Objection Certificate for the forest land under the control of District Officer. The disputed land in S.No.246/2 over an area of 49.83 acres was declared as “Reserve land” in Madras – Chengalpattu District Gazette. Hence, the Forest Department is the absolute owner of the above said land since 1969. However, without challenging the Gazette notification issued by the Government in Gazette Publication on 01.05.1969, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the 2^nd and 4^th respondents. In respect of the Forest Reserve Land, the Revenue officials have no power to deal with the forest land and they are not entitled to issue patta. Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

uma

¶22

¶23

The District Collector

¶24

Tiruvallur District, At Tiruvallur.

¶25

The District Forest Officer Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur.

¶26

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

¶27

The Tahsildar

¶28

Tiruttani Taluk

¶29

Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District

¶30

The Forest Officer Tiruttani Forest Range

¶31

Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.

¶32

The Village Administrative Officer Athipattu Village Tiruttani Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.Thangavel, Advocate, S.R.No.99618

¶34

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(F), S.R.No.99743

¶35

W.P.No.13915 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2011
BR(CO)
CS/22/01/2020

¶36

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

S. Sivaraman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sivaraman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rajendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Clement Singarayan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Kachapalayam Vs Interim Administrator

S.Adinarayanan Vs Union Territor of Puducherry

C.Natarajan, Vs the District Collector

E.Mani (Code No 6500) Vs Union Territory of Puducherry