Dismissed

Munimarappa v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Oct 2021WP/19973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the classification of land as Anadeenam and seeking a patta order, holding the petition infructuous as the authority had already passed an order rejecting the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous pending the communication of the rejection order passed by the authority.

Munimarappa Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

 DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.NO.19973 OF 2021
&
 W.M.P.NO.21229 OF 2021

¶6

Munimarappa

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri

¶10

2. The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri

¶11

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District

¶12

4. The Tahsildar, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
4th respondent to remove the classification of petitioner's land
as Anadheenam and consequently direct the 4th respondent to issue
patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property
comprised in S.No.66/1 to an extent of 55 cents situated at
Malligarjunadurgam village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri
District by considering the petitioner's representation dated
20.08.2021.

¶15

 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶16

 For Respondents: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
 Government Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
4th respondent to remove the classification of petitioner's land
as Anadheenam and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to
issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the
property comprised in S.No.66/1 to an extent of 55 cents
situated at Malligarjunadurgam village, Denkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 20.08.2021.

¶20

2. The brief facts of the case is that the property
comprised in S.No.66/1 to an extent of 55 cents situated at
Malligarjunadurgam village, Denkanikottai taluk, Krishnagiri
District belongs to the petitioner and he is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner is
paying kists without any default and all the revenue records are
in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has also
constructed a house in the subject property. While that being
so, the petitioner's land was classified as 'Anadeenam' in the
A-Register and the same is due to the error caused by the
respondents. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a
representation along with relevant documents to the respondents
on 20.08.2021 to remove the classification as 'Anadheenam' from
the revenue records and to issue patta in the name of the
petitioner in respect of the property at S.No.66/1, to an extent
of 55 cents situated at Malligarjunadurgam Village,
Dhenkanikottai, till date no action has been initiated and the
respondents without any notice or proper valid reason is trying
to demolish the house of the petitioner. Left with no other
option, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondents ought to have made correction in the revenue
records. Further, the petitioner has made out a prima facie
case for the kind consideration of this Court and the balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner. At present, the
respondents are trying to demolish the house of the petitioner
without any notice or valid reasons, which is against the manner
known to law, thereby pleaded to allow the prayer sought for in
this Writ Petition.

¶22

4. The learned Government advocate appearing for the
respondents has produced a draft counter affidavit filed by the
4th respondent.

¶23

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the documents placed on record.

¶24

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

¶25

6. A perusal of the said draft counter affidavit filed by
the 4th respondent would reveal that the land in S.No.66/1
measuring 0.81.5 hectare of Malligarjuna Durgam village in
Denkanikottai has been classified as 'Anadeenam' or 'Assessed
waste Dry' in the Government / Revenue records and Anadeenam is
a kind of poromboke land and the land belongs to State
Government. The petitioner has not submitted any records or
documents to establish his claim and the said survey number has
been selected for the provision of free house sites to the down
trodden poor houseless 'Erular' Community people in the village.
The petitioner wantonly encroached and entered in the government
land and constructed a house.

¶26

7. The said draft counter further reveals that the
petitioner is a mason by profession and not a agriculturist by
profession. The petitioner never cultivated in the subject land
and the land is lying waste. The value of the subject land is
roughly estimated at about 40 lakhs and the petitioner in order
to grab the valuable government land is claiming right over the
said land. The Government has banned the assignment of the
government lands to private person and the said land cannot be
reclassified and patta cannot be granted for the said land.

¶27

8. That apart, it is reiterated in the said draft counter
affidavit that the 4th respondent has passed orders on the
representation of the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.2257/2021 (A3)
dated 28.09.2021, rejecting the request of the petitioner and
the house constructed by the petitioner is illegal and the said
house will be evicted as per law.

¶28

9. Since the order has already been passed by the
authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner made in the
representation dated 28.09.2021, the prayer made in the writ
petition has become infructuous and no orders could be passed by
this Court. The 4th respondent / Tahsildar, Krishnagiri is
hereby directed to send a copy of the said order to the
petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

¶29

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶32

// True Copy //

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

ssd

¶35

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

¶36

To 1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri 2. The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District 4. The Tahsildar, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District +1cc to M/s.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, S.R.No.52113 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52033 W.P.No.19973 of 2021 & W.M.P.No.21229 of 2021

¶37

PM(CO)
RLP(26/10/2021)

¶38

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

Munimarappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munimarappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugesan Vs The Tahsildar

M.Mustiq Ahamed, Vs The Secretary to Government

A.D.Venkatasubramanyan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Mr.a.Subramaniyam Vs The Tashildar

P.Pradeepkumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Subramani Vs The District Collector