Remanded

Mr.P.Gaja v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/11199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Tahsildar’s order rejecting a patta application for grama natham land. The court quashed the impugned order for lack of jurisdiction and lack of inquiry, directing the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar’s order was set aside. Petitioner directed to file fresh application before Revenue Divisional Officer; authority directed to decide within eight weeks.

Mr.P.Gaja Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020
Mr.P.Gaja,
S/o. Perumal ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram Dt., T.N.
2. The Tahsildar,
Tirupukuzhi,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Village Administrative Officer,
Tirupukuzhi, Kancheepuram.
4. The Revenue Inspector,
Tirupukuzhi, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶7

India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call

¶8

1/6

¶9

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶10

for the records in Na.Ka.No.1739/2020/A2 dated 26.06.2020 and quash the same and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner based on his application No.2019/01/05/03/246139 dated 21.09.2019.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Srikrishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Parhasarathi Govt. Advocate O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar rejecting the petitioner's request to grant patta. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is in possession and occupation of grama natham land in Survey No.590/4 (residential house) and 590/18 (vacant plot), at VOC Street, Baluchetty Chatram, Kancheepuram and the said land has been purchased by petitioner's wife on 23.04.1992. Thereafter, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, they have made a representation to the respondents to grant patta in their favour. Now, by the impugned order dated

¶12

2/6

¶13

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶14

26.06.2020, the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar rejected the request stating that the petitioner is already having patta in respect of punja land. Hence, he is not entitled for patta. Now, challenging the impugned order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the

¶16

petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of grama natham land and he is entitled for patta for the same. He would submit that now, the petitioner is not asking for any free housesite, but the Tahsildar without conducting enquiry whatsoever has rejected the petitioner's claim only on the ground that he is having patta in respect of punja land. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is utter violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would submit that the petitioner has only sought for patta in respect of grama natham land and as per the circular issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.08.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer only

¶18

3/6

¶19

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶20

has a power to consider the proposal subject to the scrutiny of District Revenue Officer. Hence, the petitioner cannot approach the Tahsildar seeking for patta in respect of grama natham land and he has also produced the copy of circular.

¶21

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel

¶22

appearing for petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents and perused the records carefully.

¶23

Considering the submission made by the learned Addl. Government Pleader stating that, the granting of patta in respect of grama natham land, as per the said circular, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to decide the issue and the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to consider

¶24

the application for granting of patta. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶25

4/6

¶26

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed

¶28

to file fresh application before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer seeking for patta in respect of grama natham land and if any such application is filed, the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass suitable orders on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of

¶29

receipt of copy of such application. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands

¶30

disposed of. No costs. 07.04.2021 rpp To

¶31

The Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service, 13, Rukmini Lakshmimapthy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶32

The Deputy Director (Northern Region), Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service,

¶33

13, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶34

The Divisional Fire Officer, (Central Division), Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶35

5/6

¶36

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020

¶37

V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.

¶38

rpp

¶39

W.P.No. 11199 of 2020
07.04.2021

¶40

6/6

Mr.P.Gaja v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.P.Gaja 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

Suresh Vs State Rep.by

V.Parthasarathy Vs P.Ponniah

Sanjoy Bhattacharya Vs State by

E.M.Nagalingam Vs The Secretary to Government

Tmt.Paranjothi Vs The District Registrar(East)

K.Gomathi Vs The District Collector