Disposed

C.Sivakumar, v. The Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/16074/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a bar on construction and seeking patta issuance, the Madras High Court held that since the land is categorized as Government 'Anatheenam', the Revenue Authorities must conduct a full enquiry and verify revenue records before deciding the classification and patta claim.

What did the court decide?

The first and second respondents are directed to conduct a full enquiry, verify revenue records, and decide the petitioner's plea for patta for 27 ares and communicate the final decision within an out

C.Sivakumar, Vs The Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 16074 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 19103 of 2018

¶6

C.Sivakumar ...Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1. The Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur - 602 001.

¶9

2. The Tahsildar, Avadi Taluk, Avadi,

¶10

Chennai - 600 054.

¶11

3. The Chairman and Managing Director,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd.,

¶13

No.132, EVR Salai, Poonammallee High Road,

¶14

Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

¶15

4. The President,

¶16

Vellanoor Panchayat Union, Vellanoor Village, Chennai - 600 002. ...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3, from putting up any constructions in the lands in S.No.445/1, in Vellanoor Village, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3, to issue patta in the name of the petitioner for the said lands in S.No.445/1, in Vellanoor Village, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raja

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R3 and R4

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3, from putting up any constructions in the lands in S.No.445/1, in Vellanoor Village, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3, to issue Patta in the name of the petitioner for the said lands in S.No.445/1, in Vellanoor Village, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062.

¶23

2. In respect of the land to an extent of 0.33.0 ares at S.No.445/1 at Vellanoor-II Village, Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District, the petitioner claims ownership, as he traced title from the sale deed dated 01.01.1970 executed between one Parthasarathy and Chokalingam. The petitioner's father Chokalingam, purchased the said property in question, by sale deed dated 01.01.1970, based on such ownership as claimed by the petitioner, he had made a request to the respondents to issue Patta to the said land, since the same has not been considered, he had already approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P. No. 30054 of 2016, where, the learned Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.08.2016, has passed the following order:

¶24

"4. Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances and without going in to the merits of the same, permits the petitioner to submit an application along with a copy of this order, in a proper format along with necessary fees to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the same, is directed to consider the said application, if it is otherwise in order and pass orders in accordance with law, after putting on notice, the person/s concerned within a further period of ten weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the person/s concerned."

¶25

3. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner had given a further representation on 12.09.2016, pursuant to which, the second respondent / Tahsildar had sent a communication dated 17.07.2017, which reads thus:

¶26

@jpUts ; S : h ; khtl ; lk ; . Mto tl ; lk ; . fpuhkk ; . bts ; shDhh ; ?II fpuhkk ; . g [ y vz ; /445-1. bkhj ; j tp! ; jPuzk ; ?0/33/0 Vh ; ! ; . gl ; lh khw ; wk ; nfhhpaJ bjhlh ; ghf khz ; gik brd ; id cah ; ePjpkd ; wj ; jpy

¶27

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

¶28

bjhlh ; e ; ej tHf ; F vz ; /30054-2016 30/08/2016 ehspl ; l cj ; jputpd ; kPJ eltof ; if vLf ; Fk ; bghUl ; L jh' ; fs ; gl ; lh khw ; wk ; bra ; a nfhhpa [ s ; s ,lj ; jpd ; fpiuak ; bgw ; wjw ; fhd bjhlh ; g [ mry ; Mtz' ; fs kw ; Wk ; 30 tUl tpy ; y' ; fr ; rhd ; Wld ; tprhuizf ; F 25/10/2016 md ; W M$uhFkhW bjhptpf ; fg ; gl ; ljpy ; ,Jtiu M$uhftpy ; iy/ vdnt 18/08/2017 md ; W tprhuizf ; F M$uhFkhW bjhptpf ; fg ; gLfpwJ/ M$uhfhjgl ; rj ; jpy ,t ; tYfj ; jpy cs ; s Mtz' ; fspd ; go eltof ; if nkw ; bfhs ; sg ; gLk ; vd ; w tptuk ; bjhptpf ; fg ; gLfpwJ/@

¶29

4. Pursuant to the said communication, on 18.08.2017, the petitioner claimed that, he had attended the enquiry, where, he came to know that, 6 ares out of total 33 ares in the said property had already been alloted to the Government for construction of a Police Station, in which, the work of construction of Police Station has already been commenced. In view of the same, the grievance of the petitioner is that, at least for the remaining land, Patta can be given to the petitioner after deducting 6 ares out of 33 ares in the said property and even for the remaining land since has not been given Patta to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶30

5. Heard Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who having reiterated the aforesaid facts, would submit that, the remaining land, i.e., 33-6=27 ares can atleast be given Patta to the petitioner, for which, enquiry had already been conducted, where, the petitioner participated and produced all documents establishing his right to claim Patta as early as on 18.08.2017 itself. Therefore, a suitable direction can be given to the respondents to issue Patta to the petitioner to the said land for at least 27 ares, he contended.

¶31

6. Per contra, Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that, whether, the land which has already been categorized as 'Anatheenam' in the revenue records belongs to the petitioner or not itself is a question, unless and until, satisfactory documents are filed, the nomenclature in the revenue records itself cannot be changed. Therefore, in this regard, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Revenue Authorities by producing all the documents, as to how he claimed ownership and in this regard, a mere sale deed dated 01.01.1970 cannot be the conclusive proof to claim the ownership and therefore, on what basis, the petitioner claimed ownership in the land, which has already been categorized as 'Anatheenam' has to be established only by the petitioner.

¶32

7. He would also submit that, that apart, since the land in question consisting of 33 ares has already been categorized as

¶33

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

¶34

'Anatheenam', out of which, 6 ares has been carved out and alloted to the concerned department for construction of Police Station and that work of construction has already been commenced, therefore, in the said circumstances, after conducting a full fledged enquiry on the plea made by the petitioner, whether, he would be entitled to get the Patta for the land in question, that too, for 27 ares as claimed by him, would be decided by the Revenue Authorities, for which, some reasonable time if it is given, that would be considered and final order would be passed by the Revenue Authorities.

¶35

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶36

9. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents, the entire land which is in dispute, for which, Patta has been claimed by the petitioner to the extent of 33 ares, has already been categorized as Government 'Anatheenam'. When that being so, whether the so called categorization is right or wrong is altogether the question to be decided by the Revenue Authorities. In this regard, it is open to the petitioner, to make his claim by giving necessary documents to change the nomenclature from 'Anatheenam' to any other category, then only the right of Patta claim would arise.

¶37

10. In this regard, the claim made by the petitioner, by giving the representation based on the sale deed dated 01.01.1970 may not be enough to satisfy the Revenue Authority and in this regard, whatever the further documents which are available with the petitioner can be supplied to the Revenue Authorities. Apart from that, the Revenue Authorities after conducting the full fledged enquiry in this regard, of course after verification of the revenue records, as to how the land was categorized as 'Anatheenam' and before such categorization whether the land in question was in any other category and if so, the claim made by the petitioner tracing the title from the sale deed dated 01.01.1970 and also from the predecessor in title one Parthasarathy, for the title based on any documents in the eye of law, can very well be gone into and accordingly, a pragmatic decision can be taken by the Revenue Authorities after completing the enquiry and in this regard, any further input if they need from the petitioner to be supplied, a communication can also to be sent to the petitioner for supplying of such input, based on which, a decision can be taken by the respondents, especially the first and second respondents.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

"That the first and second respondents shall take into account the request made by the petitioner dated 12.09.2016, followed by the enquiry conducted on 18.08.2017 and in this regard, it is open to them to conduct any further enquiry, after putting the petitioner on notice and can ask further inputs to be supplied by the petitioner. Once such inputs are supplied by the petitioner, after verifying the revenue records, the respondents can decide the classification of the land as 'Anatheenam' or otherwise, accordingly, they decide the plea raised by the petitioner for Patta for remaining 27 ares of the land in question and accordingly, a decision can be taken and such final decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶41

12. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However,there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶46

vji

¶47

¶48

1. The Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur - 602 001.

¶49

2. The Tahsildar, Avadi Taluk, Avadi,

¶50

Chennai - 600 054.

¶51

3. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd., No.132, EVR Salai, Poonammallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

¶52

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

¶53

4. The President, Vellanoor Panchayat Union, Vellanoor Village, Chennai - 600 062.

¶54

+1 CC to The Government Pleader Sr 23398. +1 CC to Mr.V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Advocate, Sr 23150. +1 CC to Mr.P. Raja, Advocate, Sr 23612.

¶55

W.P. No. 16074 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 19103 of 2018

¶56

UM(CO) LS(20/07/2021)

¶57

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

C.Sivakumar, v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sivakumar, v. The Collector

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

D.Natarajan, Vs the Commissioner

C.Padma Jothi Vs The District Collector

M.P.Kasturi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Shivamma Vs The District Collector

S.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.M.Kamala Bai (Deceased) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu