Writ petition to quash rejection of compensation claim and for payment. Court held disputed facts on title cannot be tried in writ; Civil Court is remedy. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
Mr.R.Govindasamy, S/o.Ramasamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent herein by order dated 08.08.2022 in Rc. R3 / 1992700 / 2022 and quash the same and direct the 3rd Respondent either to pay compensation for Acre 3.56 cents (Award passed but not paid money for Acre 2.30 cents; Neither award passed nor money paid for Acre 1.00 cents
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
(used as road), Neither award passed nor money paid for Acree 0.26 cents (patta granted to allottes), as per present market value in S. No. 54/2B of Kuberapattinam Village, Melmuthanoor Madhura, Mothakkal Post, Thandaramapattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District or to provide the petitioner with equivalent extent of land in and around the same revenue village.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muthukrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Administration dated
08.08.2022, rejecting the claim to pay compensation in respect of the acquired land is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
absolute owner of the property, measuring to an extent of 5.50 Cents comprised in S.No.54/2B of Kuberipattinam Village, Melmuthanoor Madhura, Mthakkal Post, Thandarampattu Taluk. The father of the writ petitioner purchased the said property vide Sale Deed dated 23.03.1961, registered as Document No.822 of 1961.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
notice of this Court that the patta was erroneously granted in an illegal manner and would not confer any title on the petitioner.
counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, which reads as under:-
“12) I respectfully submit that with regard to the averment
made in paragraph 14 and 15 of the affidavit, the petitioner
had sent a letter dated 05.01.2022 to Commissioner of Land Administration, with a request for issuance of patta in respect of the land in Survey No.54/2B, extent 1.26 Acres and to grant compensation for the acquisition of the land having extent of 2.30 Acres and later classified as Grama Natham. In continuation of the receipt of the above said letter, an enquiry was conducted with the petitioner. While perusing the written statement filed by the petitioner's side, out of 5.50 Acres of land, 2.30 Acres had already been taken by the Authorized Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 and patta issued to 79 Kudiyiruppudars
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
in the year 1973. Further, during the updating Registry the land in Survey No.54/2B, was subdivided as Survey No.54/2B2, extent 1.34.0 Hectare (i.e., 3.30 Acres) had been classified as Grama Natham. However, the land measuring 1.94 Acre had been sold by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner to various individuals by registered sale deeds in the years 1987, 1988 and 1992 i.e., after having illegally updating the Registry. The petitioner had hot shown any records to substantiate that the Tahsildar had sub-divided the land having extent of Nil Acre - 71 cents and classified the said land as Street Poramboke in the year 1977. Further, in the year 1995, when the Survey for Natham Settlement was undertaken, the land having an extent of 1.26 Acre was classified as "Grama Natham" and given for various utilities like "Street Poramboke", School, "Fair Price Shop" etc., As per the provisions of section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, any person deeming himself aggrieved by the determination of any boundary under section 9, 10 or 11 of the Act, may subject to the provisions of Parts II and III
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, institute a suit within three years from the date of the notification under section 13 to set aside or modify the said determination and the survey shall, if necessary, be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit and the alteration, if any, shall be noted in the record, The petitioner having to do so, has no locus stand to claim patta for the said parcel of the land in his favour.”
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
22.08.2023
skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes
To
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.28984 of 2022
22.08.2023
Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of title and ownership regarding government-acquired land can be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to claim patta and compensation when the land is classified as Grama Natham.
Whether the High Court can grant relief relating to title or ownership in the present case.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Mr.R.Govindasamy
The Commissioner, Land Acquisition
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahsildar
The District Collector
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
