Dismissed

K.Pandurangan, v. the Union Territory of

Madras HC25 Aug 2021WP/13337/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner, an ex-serviceman, sought assignment of patta for a piece of Government poramboke land in Puducherry. The Revenue authorities rejected the request, classifying the land as a water channel. The Court upheld the rejection, relying on precedents that prohibit regularization of illegal occupation of water bodies and landless status is not established.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.

K.Pandurangan, Vs the Union Territory of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.NO.13337 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011

¶6

K.Pandurangan ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶9

The Secretary (Revenue), Revenue Department, Saram, Puducherry. 3. The District Collector, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 4. The Deputy Collector(Revenue) (South), Revenue Department, Saram, Puducherry.

¶10

The Revenue Officer, Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER:-

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings No.6562/Rev/B2/2011 dated 11.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the property in Resurvey No.213/1 extending over 0.61.00 in the total extent of 63 ares at Embalam Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry.

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Counsel For Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran

¶15

For Respondents : M/s.G.Djearany, Government Advocate(Puducherry)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings No.6562/Rev/B2/2011 dated 11.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the property in Resurvey No.213/1 extending over 0.61.00 in the total extent of 63 ares at Embalam Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that he occupied Government poramboke land comprised in re-survey No.213/1 admeasuring to an extent of 0.61.00 hectares out of total extent of 63 ares situated at Embalam Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry. He is an ex-serviceman and he is cultivating the said land from the year 1988. However, his occupation and cultivation were objected by the panchayat authorities and as such he approached revenue authorities for assignment of the said land in his favour. He also made representation on 27.06.2004 for assignment of the land and issuance of patta in his favour. The fourth respondent by the communication dated 05.07.2010 addressed to the third respondent and requested to take necessary action. Thereafter, the Director, Department of Sainik Welfare, Puducherry by the letter dated 14.12.2004 addressed to the second respondent and the third respondent recommended for issuance of grant of assignment in his favour. Thereafter, the third respondent by the communication dated 01.09.2008 to the second respondent recommended for assignment of the land in his favour.

¶19

2.1 While being so, the petitioner also filed suit in OS.No.1060 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry for declaration and permanent injunction as against the respondents. When the same was pending, the petitioner also filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.23600 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 22.10.2010 directed the authorities concerned to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks and observed that till the disposal of the said representation, the respondents are restrained from disturbing the petitioner's possession of the

¶20

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

¶21

subject property. However, the request of the petitioner was not considered and dismissed by the third respondent.

¶22

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Puducherry) appearing for the respondents submitted that the 3rd respondent in his order dated 11.03.2011 has specifically stated that the provision of Rule 31 of Land Grant Rules, 1975 relating to assignment of Poramboke and reserved land stipulates that the grant of any land registered as Poromboke or entered in the accounts as reserved or of any land specified in the rules of chapter II is prima facie objectionable and application for grant should be summarily rejected. The order further states that as presently the Government lands are not assigned to any Ex-serviceman for cultivation purpose by the Government, lands are not assigned to availability of Government lands for public purposes like construction of office, buildings, community hall etc., the request for assignment can't be considered. The order also states that the Government Department like Director of Survey and Land Records, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department are seeking suitable land for assignment of "patta" for people and resort to allotment of the Government land under Land Acquisition Act, in view of the non-availability of suitable lands. The petitioner has suppressed all the above facts and has come to this court for relief with unclean hand. Admittedly the suit property is a Government land and the petitioner is in occupation of the same by paying encroachment tax by way of assessment. As provided in the Pondicherry Land Encroachment Act, 1970, the payment of assessment shall not confer any right of occupancy to the petitioner. The Government is always free to evict such unauthorized occupation. Further, as per the provision of the Pondicherry Land Encroachment Act, 1970, the person unauthorizedly occupying the Government land is not exempted from being proceeded against, under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the Government is always within its rights to proceed against him under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. The petitioner having admitted his unauthorized occupation of the subject property and also in view of the order passed by the 3rd respondent on the representation of the petitioner for assignment of suit property has no locus standi to claim possessory title over the property. The petitioner also possesses sufficient land for his livelihood and is also having pucca built R.C.C. building and he is also owner of the petty shop.

¶23

3.1 She further submitted that the learned Principal District Munsif at Puducherry was pleased to decree the suit in O.S.No.1060 of 2010 on 05.12.2013, wherein the court passed order and decree that the suit is partly decreed and the plaintiff is declared as perfected his title to the suit

¶24

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

¶25

property by way of adverse possession. As aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court, the 4th defendant has filed an appeal in A.No.1 of 2016 before the learned Principal Subordinate Court at Puducherry. The Appellate court was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.1060 of 2010 on 12.03.2019, which had become final.

¶26

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and occupied the land which is classified as Government poramboke to an extent of 63 ares situated at remote village i.e. Embalam Village, Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry for the past thirty years. In fact, all the authorities concerned recommended to assign the said land in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value. The third respondent without considering the same and simply rejected the request of the petitioner for the reason that the provisions under Rule 31 of Land Grant Rules, 1975 relating to assignment of poramboke and reserved land stipulates that the grant of any land registered as poramboke and entered in the accounts as reserved or of any land specified under the Rules of Chapter III is prima facie objectionable and application for grant should be summarily rejected. Whereas, the petitioner claims under Rule 4 to 12 of Land Grant Rules, 1975. Rule 9 sub-clause(2) clearly provides for assignment of land for the ex-serviceman. Admittedly, the petitioner is cultivating the land for the past several years on payment of tax. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to assignment of patta under the exserviceman quota.

¶27

Heard, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s.G.Djearany, Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and he occupied the land comprised in Resurvey No.213/1 in the total extent of 63 ares at Embalam Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry. Therefore, he sought for assignment of land in his favour and submitted his representation. As directed by this Court in WP.No.23600 of 2010 by order dated 22.10.2010, the third respondent passed order on the representation of the petitioner and thereby rejected the request for assignment of land in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

On perusal of Land Grant Rules, 1975, Rule 31 says that the assignment of poramboke and reserved land stipulates that the grant of any land registered as poramboke or entered in the accounts as reserved or of any land specified in the Rules of Chapter III is prima facie objectionable and application for grant should be summarily rejected. Whereas the learned Senior

¶30

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

¶31

Counsel submitted that the petitioner is coming under Rule 9 (2) of the Land Grant Rules, 1975 and the Rule provides assignment of land in favour of ex-serviceman. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the subject land is classified as 'Arasu Vaikkal Poramboke. It means it is a water channel. Therefore, the third respondent applied Rule 31 and rightly passed the order. Though the petitioner is an ex-serviceman, his entitlement for assignment of land has rightly been rejected by the third respondent since the land in possession of the petitioner is classified as 'Arasu Vaikkal Poramboke'. The counter also revealed that the Government lands are not assigned to any ex-serviceman for cultivation purpose by the Government in view of non availability of Government lands for public purposes like constructions of office buildings, community hall, etc and as such the request for assignment cannot be considered. That apart, there was already dire need of land for Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department with regards to assignment of free house site patta for the poor people.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner possesses sufficient land and he has constructed terraced house and is residing there. In fact, the petitioner encroached the subject property which is situated adjacent to his property and the petitioner was directed to pay penalty by way of encroachment tax under the Pondicherry Land Encroachment Act, 1970. Accordingly, the petitioner also paid encroachment tax. Therefore, the tax receipts produced by the petitioner are not the property tax. That apart, admittedly the land is a vaikkal poramboke and it cannot be assigned for any purpose. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment in the case of K.Arumugam Vs. Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu reported in (2018) 5 CTC 703, and the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 dated 28.01.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held that long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases relating to landless labourers, members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Also held that no one can claim any right or title or interest over the water bodies against the Government. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any assignment for the land which he encroached, classified as 'Government vaikkal poramboke'. Therefore, the third respondent rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

lok

¶39

¶40

The Secretary, Union Territory of Puducherry, Department of Revenue, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 2. The Secretary (Revenue), Revenue Department, Saram, Puducherry 3. The District Collector, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 4. The Deputy Collector(Revenue) (South), Revenue Department, Saram, Puducherry. 5. The Revenue Officer, Puducherry. +1cc to the Government Pleader(Puducherry), S.R.No.43439 W.P.NO.13337 OF 2011

¶41

GPL(CO) PBS/17/09/2021

¶42

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

K.Pandurangan, v. the Union Territory of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pandurangan, v. the Union Territory of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajalekshmi, Vs The Competent Authority

M/s.Arun Excello Realty Pvt. Vs The Sub Registrar

Sasikala Arumugam Vs the Secretary to Government

B.Vidhya, Vs The Secretary to Government

Goutham Chand Nahar Vs the Secretary to Government

Mr.B.Selvaraj Vs the Principal Commissioner