Writ petition questioning order declining request for grant of patta. Court held writ court cannot conduct roving enquiry into title disputes. Land classified as Government poramboke. Petitioners to approach Civil Court for title.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.6512 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02-06-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.6512 of 2022
And
WMP No.6590 of 2022
... Petitioners
Vs.
Page 1 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
4.The Tahildar, Ponneri.
5.S.Viswanathan
7.P.Mariappan
8.M.Mahaveerchand
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, relating to the order dated 24.02.2022 in his proceedings No.K1/17929/2009, on the file of the first respondent and quashing the same as null and void.
| For Petitioner | : Mr.A.Saravanan |
|---|---|
| For Respondents-1 to 4 |
: Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader. |
| For Respondent-5 | : Ms.G.Daisy John |
| For Respondent-6 | : Ms.P.Bhuvaneswari |
| For Respondent-7 | : No Appearance |
| For Respondent-8 | : Mr.N.Nagu Sah |
Page 2 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
O R D E R
The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 04.12.2022 passed by the first respondent declining the request of the writ petitioners for grant of patta in respect of the subject property.
Commissioner of Land Administration, who in turn passed an order confirming the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside the patta granted against the petitioners.
WP No.6512 of 2022
affidavit filed by the respondents, which reads as under:-
“19. In the conclusion, it is submitted that the petitioners' claim is based only on the illegal/irregular orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai. As regards the said orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai passed in D.Dis.E1/14820/98 dated 11.07.2000 and earlier order E1/113/98 dated 26.03.1998, the fact remains that the said ASO's power was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned as per G.O.Ms.No.693 dated 24.07.1997. Therefore, the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officers' were passed without jurisdiction and has no legal sanctity and unsustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, the said order files of the Assistant Settlement Officer are also not available either in the Settlement Officer, Chennai-5 or in the Collectorate, Tiruvallur. It clearly proves that the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer are fabricated one. It is also to be noted that the petitioners filed an appeal against the orders of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur passed in Roc.No.M2/30079/1998 dated 05.02.2000 before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Page 4 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
Land Administration on 04.04.2000 and they cannot move any lower Forum for remedy against the District Revenue Officer's order. If it is so, how the petitioners moved the Assistant Settlement Officer on 21.03.2000 and got orders in their favour has not been explained. Even, as per the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration's order dated 16.02.2001, the claimants had not proved their title before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri. But strangely they have moved the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the SC and CLA's order and stated that a proceeding is pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri. However, there is no such proceedings pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri cannot continue the same as the Hon'ble High Court of Madras set aside the orders of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, who is the highest authority in the hierarchy to look after the matter and pass necessary orders. As such the contentions of the petitioners set out in the grounds in para-21 of the Affidavit cannot be accepted and liable to be
Page 5 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
rejected.”
Page 6 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
with. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they are at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing their title
and ownership through documents and evidences available on record.
the title dispute and more-so, the Commissioner of Land Administration has elaborately considered the documents as well as the facts placed between the parties.
merits and it stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
02-06-2023
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Page 7 of 8
WP No.6512 of 2022
Svn
To
WP 6512 of 2022
02-06-2023
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court can interfere with the order declining request for grant of patta based on title dispute where the land is classified as Government poramboke.
Whether a decree of permanent injunction granted in a civil suit is binding on Government Authorities in patta proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Poongavanam
C.Panneerselvam
C.Munusamy
C.Ravi
B.Kasthuri
C.Ramesh
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
