Quashed

A.Subramaniyan v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Nov 2019WP/18244/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed the Sub-Collector's order refusing to convert a pathway into patta land. The petitioner's valid land purchase included the lane, which revenue officials recommended classifying as 'Natham' (patta) land, not 'Sandhu'. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the matter without arbitrary law and order references.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.12.2018 is quashed; the 2nd respondent is directed to apply his mind afresh and pass appropriate orders.

A.Subramaniyan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated:08.11.2019

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.18244 of 2019

¶6

A.Subramaniyan .. Petitioner

¶7

/versus/

¶8

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶9

2.The Sub-Collector, The Sub-Collector Office, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

¶10

3.The Thasildar, Veppur Taluk Office, Veppur, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent with respect to order in Moo.Mu.(A4) 3670/2018, dated 11.12.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct to the respondents herein to issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of an extent of 178 sq.mtr comprised in S.F.No.576/10 situated at Periyanesulur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Muthuselvam For Respondents:Mr.N.Inbanathan, AGP for R1 to R3

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent with respect to order in Moo.Mu.(A4) 3670/2018, dated

¶14

1/5

¶15

11.12.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct to the respondents herein to issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of an extent of 178 sq.mtr comprised in S.F.No.576/10 situated at Periyanesulur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

3.The petitioner and his pangali have purchased each three cents of land and had constructed the residential houses for their convenience. They have left a lane for their free access. The said lane falls in S.F.No.576/10 situated at Periyanesulur Village. In the revenue record, the said lane has been classified as “Sandhu”. Hence, the petitioner has made a request to reclassify it as “Natham” patta land. While the Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar have recommended for re-classification, the Sub Collector, who is the second respondent herein has declined the request of the petitioner citing that if the pathway is reclassified as patta land, it may lead to law and order problem.

¶18

4.The petitioner and his neighbour are the absolute owners of the said extent of land, by valid purchase of the the land. They have constructed houses and left open space for free access. By classifying it as “Santhu” and refusing to issue patta to the lane does not appear to be proper. The Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and the Tahsilder of that area, after inspection had recommended to change the classification from “Santhu” to “Patta” land. In view of the fact that the said portion in S.No.576/10 is part and parcel of the composite land purchased by the petitioner and his cousin Rayappan.

¶19

5.While so, when there is no material to infer that the pathway is used as a public lane and if the patta is given to the petitioner, it will cause law and order problem, the Sub Collector on his own has declined to accept the report of the Revenue Officials in the field. Just because in the UDR scheme, the portion earmarked by the petitioner is shown as Santhu, the second respondent has blindly refused to consider the request of the petitioner.

¶20

2/5

¶21

Hence, the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 11.12.2018 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to apply his mind afresh and pass appropriate orders based on the records and reports from the Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

ari

¶28

To:

¶29

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. 2.The Sub-Collector, The Sub-Collector Office, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 3.The Thasildar, Veppur Taluk Office, Veppur, Cuddalore District.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.D.Muthuselvam, Advocate sr.93112 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.NO. 93380

¶31

W.P.No.18244 of 2019

¶32

vgii(co) nr 13/12/2019

¶33

3/5

A.Subramaniyan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Subramaniyan 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

Turbo Engineers (Cbe) Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

S.Pattammal Vs The Inspector General of

k.sathishkumar Vs The Director

V.Radhika, Vs The District Collector

P.Baskar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Dayalan Vs The District Revenue Officer