The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to issue patta. It held that the underlying 1931 decree only granted usufructuary rights to trees and fishery, not title, was abrogated by the 1963 Act transferring minor inams to the Government, and the land remains Poramboke.
Petition dismissed; no patta ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No.12629 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29-08-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.12629 of 2010
And
MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2010
1.G.Zakir Hussain (Diseased)
2.Z.Shamshad
3.Syed Hussain
5.Asiya Bee [P-2 to P-5 are substituted as LRs of the deceased first petitioner vide order of Court dated 18.08.2022 made in WMP No.29513 of 2021 in WP No.12629 of 2010]
... Petitioners
Vs.
2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No.A2.25803/94 dated 17.09.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to issue patta in favour of the deceased first petitioner for the property situate in Thiruvannamalai in T.S.No.1802/1 and 2, Acres 3.75 and Acres 4.77 respectively.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Raja Gopalan Senior Counsel For Mrs.P.Veena Suresh For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General Assited by Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the
order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the first respondent-District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.
No.908 of 1929 to declare that he is entitled for declaration of title with
Page 2 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
respect to the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule and for the mandatory injunction and to mutate the revenue records.
Page 3 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
with the Civil Court decree and the order passed by the High Court, the deceased first petitioner approached the respondents for issuance of patta. However, the respondents have not acceded to the request of the deceased first petitioner. Thus, the deceased first petitioner again filed WP No.24247 of 2005 for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue patta in his favour. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.07.2005. Thereafter, the deceased first petitioner approached the respondents for issuance of patta, but not acted upon, and the deceased first petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.813 of 2007. The respondents took a stand that the Civil Court decree is unenforceable, as the father of the deceased first petitioner failed to execute the decree of declaration. Consequently, the respondents herein passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 stating that the subject lands are 'Government Poramboke lands' and 'Water Bodies'. Thus the deceased first petitioner is not entitled for patta.
WP No.12629 of 2010
Petitions and Writ Appeals, are also not implemented and the present impugned order has been passed contrary to the dictum of the Civil Court
and the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals.
committed by the Executives and thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
Judicial Authority, ought to have conducted an enquiry and considered the case of the deceased first petitioner for grant of patta and to effect changes in the revenue records. Without conducting any such enquiry, the order impugned has been passed and thus it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Page 5 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. The present status of the subject property has been stated through written instructions by letter dated 17.11.2022. In the said letter, the second respondent-Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai has stated that the lands in TS No.1802/1 (3.75 Acres) and TS No.1802/2 (4.77 Acres) are continuing as 'Punjai Tharisu' and there is a pond situate in the subject land. The lands are under the control of the Revenue Department. The pond situates in Survey No.1802/1. Two Tombs are also situate in the subject lands. However, the lands are not under the possession of any person. The land has been classified as 'Government Poramboke' and as of now, there is no rules to assign the land in favour of any person. There is a 'Water Body' also situate in the subject land and such objectionable 'Water Bodies' cannot be assigned or handed over in favour of private persons. The Government also imposed complete ban to assign the objectionable lands and water bodies in favour of individuals in G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue Department, dated 20.01.1987.
Page 6 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
Page 7 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib, Thiruvannamalai filed suit in OS No.908 of 1929 for declaration that the plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff and the defendants 9 to 14 in common, for an injunction, directing the District Collector to correct the entries in the Settlement Register by registering their names. The suit decreed on 17.10.1931. However, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 9 to 14 in OS No.908 of 1929 had filed any Execution Petition till date to execute the decree dated 17.10.1931.
WP No.12629 of 2010
District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai.
petitioner) and some others claiming to be the heirs of the decree holders viz., G.Zakir Hussain Sahib in OS No.908 of 1929 filed another suit in OS No.1165 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court Thiruvannamalai, to enforce the decree dated 17.10.1931 passed in OS No.908 of 1929. Since,
an exparte decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai on 22.12.1998, an appeal had been preferred by the Government before the Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai in ASSR No.G/9261 dated 11.09.2007 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Page 9 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
of 1929 by filing a fresh suit.
District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai was filed by the father of the deceased first petitioner Mr.Gafffar Sahib for an injunction not to interfere with their possession. An exparte decree was again passed on 21.04.1995. In the said suit also, the father of the deceased first petitioner has not filed any Execution Petition to execute the ex parte decree dated 21.04.1995 in OS No.594 of 1994 till date.
Hussain filed WP No.24247 of 2005 to direct the Revenue Officials to issue patta to the deceased first petitioner in respect of subject lands.
Page 10 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
DISCUSSIONS :
the parties in the present lis. The issue to be considered is, whether the deceased first petitioner is entitled for patta in respect of subject lands and consequently, the changes are to be effected in the revenue records or not.
the decree of declaration of title dated 17.10.1931.
Page 11 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
“DECREE
This suit coming on the 18th , 20th , 25th August, 2nd and 16th September and 3rd day of October, 1931 for final disposal before M.R.Ry.R.T.Krishnamachari Avl., B.A., B.L., District Munsif in the presence of Mr.T.R.Ramaswamy Iyer, pleader for plaintiff and of Mr.T.Natesa Iyer, pleader for the first defendant, Mr.K.Gopalasami Mudaliar, pleader for 2 to 5, 9, 10 and 12 to 15 defendants and the other defendants being ex parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day and that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 having made an endorsement on the plaint that the plaintiff does not press this suit as regards items 1 to 23 of the plaint D schedule and as against defendants 2 to 5 and the first defendant having admitted the right of the plaintiff as regards item 1 of the B schedule and items 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 2/3rd share in items 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of the plaint D schedule
Page 12 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
and the right of the plaintiff and others to enjoy the produce of all the trees in and the fishery in the Kuttais and Ponds in Item 31 of the plaint D schedule , it is hereby declared as follows:-
1. That the plaintiff and defendants 9 to 14 are absolutely entitled to the plaint A schedule items 4 and 5 and item 1 of the plaint B schedule and also items 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40 and two-third shares in items 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of the plaint D schedule, more particularly described hereunder.
2. This Court doth further order and declare that the plaintiff and defendants 9 to 14 be entitled to enjoy the usufruct of all the trees in and also the fishery in all the kuttais and ponds in item 31 of D schedule.
3. That the plaintiff and defendants 9 to 14 be entitled to have the entries in the Re-Settlement Register amended as indicated above.
4. That in other respects that the plaintiff's suit be and the same hereby is dismissed.
5. And that the plaintiff do pay first defendant Rs.46-2-8 being the two-third of his costs with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from this date till payment and do bear this costs
Page 13 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
Rs.98-9-0 himself.
And the other defendants do bear their costs themselves.”
and not by the father of the deceased first petitioner Mr.Syed Gaffar. In the writ affidavit, the deceased first petitioner has wrongly stated that his father filed OS No.908 of 1929. Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib, S/o.Syed Abdul Kadhir Sahib was an Inamdar. Even the cause title in the suit explicitly states that “Inamdar Syed Hussain Sahib”. Therefore, the said Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib was an Inamdar.
Page 14 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 2/3rd share in items 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of the plaint D schedule and the right of the plaintiff and others to enjoy the produce of all the trees in and the fishery in the Kuttais and Ponds in Item 31 of the plaint D schedule”.
that the plaintiff does not press the suit as regards items 1 to 23 plaint D schedule as against the defendants 2 to 5. The first defendant in the suit was the Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of North Arcot. The first respondent admitted the rights of the plaintiff as regards items mentioned above in B schedule and plaint D schedule to
enjoy the produce of all trees and in and the fishery in the kuttais and ponds in item 31 of the plaint D schedule .
admitted the right of the Indamdar Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib only to the limited extent of enjoying produce of all trees and fishery in the kuttais and ponds. The first respondent-Government in the suit has admitted the rights of the Inamdar only to enjoy the produce of the trees and the fishery in the Page 15 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
kuttais and ponds. Subsequent portion of the decree do not confer any absolute title or ownership on the plaintiff, Inamdar of Mr.Syed Hussain
Sahib. Even para 2 of the decree stipulates that “the plaintiff and the defendants 9 to 14 be entitled to enjoy all the trees and also the fishery in all the kuttais and ponds in item 31 of the D schedule” . The third para of the decree states that the plaintiffs and the defendants 9 to 14 be entitled to have entries in the Re-Settlement Register.
Page 16 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
WP No.12629 of 2010
positive direction to grant patta by conferring the title or ownership regarding the subject property. The orders passed in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals are not positive directions, but directing the respondents to consider the case of the deceased first petitioner on merits and no doubt the decree has been referred. Mere reference of the decree of the year 1931 would be of no avail to the deceased first petitioner for claiming title or ownership in respect of 'Government Poramboke' land and the 'Water Bodies' situate therein.
Thiruvannamalai has categorically considered the classification of the subject property, which reveals that it is 'Government Poramboke' and 'Water Bodies', including kuttais and ponds situate in the subject properties. The respondents have further stated that the 'Government Poramboke' lands, which is 'Punjai Tharisu', is under the control of the Revenue Department and there is a pond situates in Survey No.1802/1. The Authorities have stated that neither the deceased first petitioner nor his relatives are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands as of now.
Page 18 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib is concerned, he had not filed any Execution Petition to execute the decree dated 17.10.1931. Meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an Act 'Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963', wherein under Section 3, it has been stated very clearly that all the minor inams shall stand transferred to the Government from the date of commencement of the Act. The said At came into force with effect from 05.02.1964 . Thus the unexecuted decree dated 17.10.1931 in OS No.908 of 1929 stands abrogated due to commencement of the abovesaid Act. Therefore, all subsequent proceedings initiated by the family members of the original plaintiff Inamdar Mr.Syed Hussain Sahib cannot be a ground to claim title or ownership or patta. There was no adjudication before the Settlement Officer pursuant to the Act nor an application seeking patta has been filed before the cut off date stipulated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.714 of the year 1987.
WP No.12629 of 2010
proceedings for the purpose of grant of patta. The subject lands were vested
with the Government pursuant to abolition of 'Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963' and thereafter the decree passed in the year 17.10.1931, cannot be executed. Thus the decree became an unexecutable one.
'Water Bodies' situate in the subject property.
Page 20 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
an inevitable conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
29-08-2023
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn
To
Page 21 of 22
WP No.12629 of 2010
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 12629 of 2010
29-08-2023
Page 22 of 22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the deceased petitioner is entitled to a patta for lands classified as Government Poramboke and Water Bodies despite previous civil decrees.
Whether the decree dated 17.10.1931 in the underlying suit remained operational after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXIX of 1963.
Whether the Revenue authorities committed a violation of natural justice by refusing to record the petitioner's name without conducting an enquiry.
G.Zakir Hussain (Diseased)
The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District
The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
