Writ petition challenging rejection of patta application for land where a civil court previously decreed title in petitioner's favor against government officials. Court set aside impugned order directing issuance of patta within 12 weeks.
Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to grant patta within 12 weeks.
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(MD)No.15633 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD).No.12357 of 2017
N.Shanmugam .. Petitioner
vs.
Sivagangai. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.Si/219825/2016 dated 28.07.2017, signed on 10.08.2017 and further direct the second respondent herein to issue patta in favour of the writ petitioner for the land in Survey No.691/7, New Survey No.844/33 to an extent of 102 square meters, Salaigramam Village, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, following the
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
civil Court decree in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ilayankudi, within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by
the second respondent dated 28.07.2017, rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of patta in respect of old Survey No.691/7, New Survey No.844/33 situated at Salaigramam Village, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
during Natham settlement, based on which, the subject land was assigned to one Narayanan on 29.10.2004. Knowing that the petitioner has raised objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, to cancel the assignment and to grant patta in his favour, the third respondent, who conducted a detailed enquiry, vide proceedings dated 20.02.2009, cancelled the assignment issued in favour of the said Narayanan, however, did not issue any patta in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a civil suit before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi in O.S.No.54 of 2010 for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction on the subject property as against the District Collector, Sivagangai District and the Tahsildar, Ilayangudi Taluk and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 10.03.2011. In the meantime, the assignee, viz., Narayanan, has preferred an appeal before the second respondent as against the order of the third respondent dated 20.02.2009 cancelling the order of assignment and the second respondent dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.06.2015 confirming the order passed by the third respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition before the second respondent for grant of patta in respect of the subject property and the same was pending without any progress. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD).No.21237 of 2015 for a Mandamus directing the District Revenue 3/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
Officer, Sivagangai, to dispose of his petition dated 31.07.2015 preferred by him for grant of patta and this Court, vide order, dated 30.11.2015, has disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent to consider the petition of this petitioner by taking into account the judgment and decree granted in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on 10.03.2011 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ilayankudi. However, the District Revenue Officer has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of patta vide order dated 24.02.2016, which was challenged before the first respondent by way of an appeal and the first respondent, vide order dated 16.08.2016, has remitted the matter back to the second respondent to decide the matter afresh taking into account the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2010 dated 10.03.2011 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent on 28.07.2017 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of patta and the same is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
4/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
land was originally classified as Natham land and during Natham settlement, by oversight, it was classified as Sarkar Kalimanai and was wrongly assigned in favour of one Narayanan, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the order of assignment was cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition before the second respondent for grant of patta in his favour in respect of the subject land and since the same was not considered, he has filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.21237 of 2015 and this Court has also issued a specific direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the petition made by the petitioner on 31.07.2015, in accordance with the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2010 dated 10.03.2011. However, without considering the same, the second respondent has passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of patta, which was challenged before the first respondent and the first respondent has set aside the order passed by the second respondent on the ground that the decree passed by the civil Court was not considered, and remanded the matter once again for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner in a mechanical manner, without considering the decree granted by the competent civil Court in favour of the petitioner and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
5/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
6/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
the petitioner who is not the owner of the property.
7/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011. The same was considered by this Court in W.P(MD).No.21237 of 2015 and a direction was issued to the second respondent to consider the petition made by the petitioner on 31.07.2015. Even thereafter, the second respondent has passed a similar order not considering the request of the petitioner and it was challenged before the first respondent by way of appeal. The first respondent, vide proceedings, dated 16.08.2016, suggested the second respondent to verify with the decree passed in the above mentioned suit and take necessary steps to file an appeal against the said decree. Though this was observed by the first respondent in his order, dated 16.08.2016, the second respondent has not taken any steps to file appeal and instead, simply rejected the request of this petitioner for grant of patta vide the impugned order, without application of mind.
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
Kalimanai. The first respondent, while remanding the matter back, has also suggested the second respondent to file appeal, if it has not been preferred. However, the second respondent by the impunged order has acted in a highhanded manner as if he is above the law. This attitude of the second respondent is condemnable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
dealing with the Government cases. Even if there is any delay, action can be taken as against the concerned Officials who are responsible for the delay in not filing the appeals and if the appeals have been filed with genuine reasons of delay, the Court would condone the delay, provided if sufficient reasons are adduced. What is required is courage to take action as against the erring officials who have not taken steps in protecting the Government lands.
10/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
accountability on the Officials to deal with these cases. It is upto the Government to take a call on this issue.
Index : Yes / No 18 .12.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes ssb
11/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
To
12/13
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
WP(MD)No.15633 of 2017
18.12.2023
13/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of patta violating a final civil court decree declaring his ownership.
Whether the second respondent was liable to be set aside for passing an order without application of mind to a prior civil judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Shanmugam
Commissioner of Land Administration/ Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Land Administration
District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai
Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
