Dismissed

B. Varalatchumi, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Feb 2021WP/10010/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the respondent's refusal to issue a certificate acknowledging possession. The High Court, acting under Article 226, held that the respondent had no statutory obligation to issue such a certificate for a vacant land. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Civil Court for title or the relevant authority for patta.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the Civil Court to establish title and possession or to approach the concerned authority to get patta under Natham settlement.

B. Varalatchumi, Vs the Tahsildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P. No. 10010 of 2011

¶6

B.Varalatchumi ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Sriperumbudur.

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the impugned proceedings dated 15.02.2011 in O.Mu.6858/2010/A1 of the respondent herein and quash the same and directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation on merits in accordance with law after offerding opportunity to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Jeremiah For Respondents : Mr. M.Elumalai Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in relation to the impugned proceedings dated 15.02.2011 in O.Mu.6858/2010/A1 of the respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation.

¶12

The petitioner appears to have submitted a representation to the respondent for issuing a certificate acknowledging the petitioner's possession and enjoyment for a piece of land which according to the petitioner belongs to him. The petitioner's claim is that his father in law purchased the property by way of sale deed dated 14.10.1940. It is admitted that the land is a vacant land and that the property itself was purchased as a house site even as per the original sale deed. The respondent cannot issue a certificate to show that the

¶13

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

¶14

petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondent has has no statutory obligation to issue such certificate and it is not his job to find whether the petitioner is in possession or somebody else. The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the respondent, refusing to grant such certificate to the petitioner, on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner.

¶15

When the respondent has no statutory obligation to issue such certificate vouching petitioner's possession, this Court is unable to find any irregularity in the order passed by the respondent. It is true that the respondent has rejected the petitioner's representation on the ground that the land is classified as village natham and that it is a vacant land. A land which is classified as village natham does not vest with Government under any of the enactments by which the lands were taken over by the Government subject to the rights of ryots to get patta. Any land which is reserved / used by villagers for their residence is a land which is classified as village natham. It is the property of such individual who has his residential building. If a land is vacant and it is part of a larger extent of land which is classified as grama natham, the vacant land might also be a communal land. The communal land vest with the Government under the provisions of Act 26 of 1948. In such circumstances, the observation of the respondent that the certificate regarding the petitioner's enjoyment cannot be granted in respect of a vacant land cannot be faulted.

¶16

Though the respondent has passed an order without disputing petitioner's possession, the petitioner has no statutory right to get such certificate. The question of possession has to be established before the Civil Court if the petitioner has to protect his possession from strangers. The petitioner can also approach the concerned authority to get patta under Natham settlement.

¶17

The Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to establish his title and possession to seek appropriate relief or to approach the concerned authority to get patta under Natham settlement. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

bkn

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Sriperumbudur.

¶25

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.5903.

¶26

W.P. No. 10010 of 2011

¶27

PL(CO) CSR 09.04.2021

¶28

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

B. Varalatchumi, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Varalatchumi, v. the Tahsildar

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

T.Kannaki Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Karthik Vs the Competent Authority of

S.Vasu Vs the Inspector General of

S. Manikandan Vs the District Collector

P.S.Lakshmi Vs the District Revenue Officer

B.Munusamy Vs the Tahsildar