Disposed

D.Natarajan, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC15 Apr 2021WP/14150/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing District Collector to issue Patta for lands categorized as Anadheenam. Court held Patta not a matter of right for such land but ordered District Collector to consider a fresh representation to rectify the categorization after giving opportunity of hearing within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make fresh representation to District Collector to rectify land category; Collector to consider, hear, and decide within 12 weeks.

D.Natarajan, Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 14150 of 2011

D.Natarajan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Commissioner,

Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.

¶11

2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet Revenue Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

4. The Tahsildar,

¶14

Thirukazhukundram Taluk Office, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner for the lands purchased by his father vide Sale Deed dated 02.07.1965 registered in Document No.1283/65 and another Sale Deed dated 22.01.1970 registered in Document No.548/1970, at the office of Sub Registrar, Chengalpattu to the extent of 4.80 acres in S.No.251 and 1.00 acre in S.No.253 situated in Pudupattinam Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms.Abirami for Mr.V.Ragjavachari

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan

¶18

Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner for the lands purchased by his father vide Sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Deed dated 02.07.1965 registered in Document No.1283/65 and

¶21

another Sale Deed dated 22.01.1970 registered in Document No.548/1970, at the office of Sub-Registrar, Chengalpattu to the extent of 4.80 acres in S.No.251 and 1.00 acre in S.No.253 situated in Pudupattinam Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶22

2. In respect of the land at S.No.251 and other land situated at Pudupattinam Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, the petitioner claimed Patta. In this regard, representation / request had been given, which was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner already approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1386 of 2010, where, this Court by order dated 28.01.2010 directed the third respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass orders on merits.

¶23

3. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court dated 28.01.2010, it seems that, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, pursuant to which, they came to the conclusion that, the land in question, for which, Patta was sought for by the petitioner since has been categorized as "Anadheenam", Patta cannot be granted to the petitioner as claimed by him. Therefore, stating the same, an order has been passed in this regard, pursuant to which, it seems that, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to cancel the said declaration of the land in question as "Anadheenam", according to the petitioner, that has been wrongly categorized as "Anadheenam".

¶24

4. In response to the same, the fourth respondent / Tahsildar by his proceedings dated 06.07.2010 has made the following order:

¶25

**j [ pUf ; fKf ; Fd ; wk ; tl ; lk ; g [ Jg ; gl ; ozk ; fpuhkk ; g [ y vz ; /251 tp! ; jPuzk ; 2/13 Vf ; fh ; kw ; Wk ; g [ y vz ; /253/2 tp! ; jPuzk ; 0/50 brd ; l ; epyk ; fpuhk fzf ; Ffspy ; mdhjPdk ; vd ; Dk tifghLila g [ ykhf cs ; sJ/ ,jpy ; c' ; fs ; jfg ; gdhh ; jpU/rp/njrg ; g brl ; oahh ; vd ; gth ; g [ y vz ; /251 tp! ; jPuzk ; 2/13 Vf ; fh ; kw ; Wk ; g [ y vz ; /251 tp! ; jPuzk ; 0/50 brd ; l ; epyk ; gj ; jpu gjpt [ Miz vz ; /1283-65 ehs ; 03/02/1965?d ; go jpUkjp vd ; /nf/jphpg [ uRe ; jhp vd ; gthplk fpiuak ; bgw ; wjhft [ k ; . nkYk ; gj ; jpu gjpt [ vz ; /548-1970 ehs 23/01/1970?d ; goa [ k ; fpiuak ; bgw ; Ws ; sjhft [ k ; bjhptpj ; J mjd mog ; gilapy ; gl ; lh tH' ; f nfhhpapUe ; jPh ; fs ; / epy clik nkk ; ghl ; L jpl ; lj ; jpy ; nkw ; fz ; l g [ yk ; mdhjPdk ; vd jtwhf fzf ; F bfhz ; L tug ; bgw ; wjhft [ k ; mij rhp bra ; at [ k nfhhpapUe ; jPh ; fs ; / nkw ; go g [ yk ; fpuhk fzf ; Ffspy ; mdhjPdk ; vd cs ; sjhy ; gl ; lh khw ; wk ; bra ; a ,ayhJ vd ; gij ,jd K : yk ; bjhptpj ; Jf ; bfhs ; fpnwd ; /*

¶26

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

¶27

5. In respect of the said order, now the grievance of the petitioner is that, the very declaration made as "Anadheenam" of the land in question itself is a wrong declaration, therefore, that has to be changed or modified, then only he will be able to get Patta in the land in question.

¶28

6. However, in respect of the said request, the answer is already there in the order of the Tahsildar dated 06.07.2010, where, he has stated that, at the level of Tahsildar, no such action can be taken to change the very nomenclature of the land as "Anadheenam" in to any other category as that power is not vested with the Tahsildar and only in that circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶29

7. Heard Ms.Abirami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who has reiterated the aforesaid facts and seeks indulgence of this Court to give a direction to the respondents especially the second respondent / District Collector to decide the issue as to whether the declaration of land as "Anadheenam" is correct or not and in this regard, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, a decision can be taken by the District Collector or any other authority concerned to whom such work can be entrusted by the District Collector.

¶30

8. However, Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, having relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in this regard by the fourth respondent would submit that, since the land has already been categorized as "Anadheenam", no Patta can be given to the petitioner and still the petitioner has got any grievance to change the very nomenclature of the land as "Anadheenam" category, he can redress the grievance by filing any petition to the concerned authority in this regard, since RDO conducted the enquiry, pursuant to the enquiry, Tahsildar has passed an order dated 06.07.2010, no further indulgence can be shown by the respondents especially RDO concerned.

¶31

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶32

10. It is a fact that the land in question has already been categorized as "Anadheenam", therefore, what are all the lands which come under "Anadheenam", Patta cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶33

11. However, now the grievance of the petitioner is that, the very categorization of the land in question as "Anadheenam" itself is a wrong categorization, therefore, that has to be rectified, for which, whoever the authority empowered to make such correction in the declaration and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ category of land, can make necessary correction, after

¶34

enquiring the issue in detail by giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶35

12. In this regard, even though such a plea herein has been made by the petitioner, this Court does not find any such request made by the petitioner before the respondents, therefore, this Court feels that, if at all any such request is made now by the petitioner, that can be directed to be considered by the concerned authority and according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the second respondent / District Collector to whom if any representation is given, the same would be considered on merits with regard to the claim made by the petitioner to change the nomenclature of the land from "Anadheenam" into any other category.

¶36

13. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders:

¶37

"(i) That the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation to the second respondent / District Collector making a plea on the consideration of the land in question which has already been categorized as "Anadheenam" to rectify and in this regard, whatever the documents available with the petitioner can very well be produced, for which, an opportunity of being heard can be given to the petitioner of course after receipt of such representation of the petitioner and thereafter, on completing the enquiry, the second respondent / District Collector or any other authority to whom, if the matter is entrusted by the second respondent / District Collector, can decide the issue with regard to the plea of the petitioner for change of nomenclature from "Anadheenam" to any other category and accordingly, orders can be passed finally on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation in this regard to be made by the petitioner as indicated above.

¶38

(ii) It is made clear that, the petitioner can make the fresh representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all relevant documents in support of the claim of the petitioner with regard to the change of the category of the land from "Anadheenam" to any other category. (iii) The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondents within the time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ frame."

¶39

14. With these directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar (CCC)

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

vji

¶45

¶46

1. The Commissioner, Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.

¶47

2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶48

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet Revenue Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶49

4. The Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk Office, Kancheepuram District.

¶50

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No. 23012 W.P. No. 14150 of 2011

¶51

KV(CO) GN(20/07/2021)

¶52

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

D.Natarajan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Natarajan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.T.Harishraj Vs District Collector

S.Yuvaraj Vs the District Registrar

M.Raju, Vs The District Collector

Mohamed Rafi Sait Vs The District Collector

C.Padma Jothi Vs The District Collector

M.P.Kasturi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer