Dismissed

P.Murugan v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Apr 2023WP/10636/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition refusing relief to a petitioner seeking removal of encroachment. The court held that since the petitioner holds patta for the disputed land, he must avail the remedy under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 instead of approaching the writ court. The court also noted the land is classified as 'Tharisu', not a waterbody.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus dismissing the petitioner's prayer to remove encroachment and rectify land records.

P.Murugan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

P.Murugan

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Vengaikal, Thiruvannamlai District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Vengaikal, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thindivanam Road, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

4.The Block Development Officer, Thurijapuram, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶15

5.The Thasildhar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶16

6.Bathma .. Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶20

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment in respect to Survey Number 30/2, which is subdivided as 30/2A, 30/2B, 30/2C, 30/2D and rectify current record as waterbodies and common pathway by following A-Register and FMB sketch before UDR by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2023.

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Sathishkumar

¶22

For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Spl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 & 5

¶23

: Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent No.4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶26

P.Murugan, son of Pandu, a resident of Aanipirandhan Village, Thiruvannamalai District, has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment made in Survey No.30/2, which is subdivided as S.Nos.30/2A, 30/2B, 30/2C, 30/2D, and rectify current record as

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶30

waterbody and common pathway by following A-Register and FMB sketch before UDR by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2023.

¶31

Mr.R.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner and his family members, who are carrying on agricultural operation in the land comprised in S.No.30/4A for several decades, are unable to have ingress and egress to their property in view of the encroachment made in S.No.30/2, which is a common pathway. It is submitted that the land in S.No.30/2 was previously classified as a waterbody and people carrying on agricultural activities were drawing water from the said waterbody. Subsequently, patta has been granted to some persons and, as a result thereof, the waterbody has gradually effaced. Therefore, the petitioner has been advised to file this writ petition for the relief stated supra.

¶32

The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to us because the 'A' Register filed by the petitioner itself shows that the land in S.No.30/2 is classified as “Tharisu” and not waterbody as claimed by the petitioner. This fact

¶33

___________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶36

falsifies the very foundation of the claim made by the petitioner that the land is classified as waterbody.

¶37

That apart, a perusal of paragraph (4) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that patta has been granted to some persons in respect of the land comprised in S.Nos.30/2A, 30/2B, 30/2C and 30/2D. If patta is granted in respect of the land classified as “Tharisu”, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and bypassing such efficacious statutory remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file a writ petition.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶39

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)

¶40

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶41

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶44

To:

¶45

1.The District Collector, Vengaikal, Thiruvannamlai District.

¶46

2.The District Revenue Officer, Vengaikal, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶47

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thindivanam Road, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶48

4.The Block Development Officer, Thurijapuram, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶49

5.The Thasildhar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

¶53

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.10636 of 2023

06.04.2023

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Murugan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited Vs M/s.a.S.Carriers Private Limited

The General Manager Vs S.Kalaimani

K.Sendilvellan Vs S.Suresh Babu

Mary Koshy Vs The Chief Manager

Jayalakshmi Vs The Director

M.Lalithamani Vs Canara Bank