The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings rejecting the petitioners' claim for patta and ordering eviction from Government Poramboke land under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Court held that the RDO had jurisdiction and that possession or payment of charges does not confer title.
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.22811 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.11.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.22811 of 2024 W.M.P. Nos.24846, 24847 and 24849 of 2024
vs.
Page Nos.1/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
4.
Tamil Nadu - 638 001.
(R7 - Suo Motu impleaded as per order dated 24.09.2024 in W.P.No.22811/2024 by ACJ and MJRJ)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records on the file of the respondent No.3 in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.2748/2024/A2 dated 12.07.2024 and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.V. Ragavachari, Senior Counsel (For Ms.V. Srimathi and K. Abhirame) For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.T. K. Saravanan,
Page Nos.2/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
(Government Advocate) For R6 : Mr. S. Ravichandran, (AGP, HR&CE) For R7 : Mr. M. Rajamathivanan, (Standing Counsel for Erode Corporation) ******
ORDER
[by K.RAJASEKAR, J.,]
This writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings passed by
the respondent No.3 in Na.Ka.No.2748/2024/A2 dated 12.07.2024, wherein the representation of the petitioners seeking issuance of patta was rejected and consequently, direction was issued to remove the encroachment made by the petitioners by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
occupation of the portions of the land in old Survey No.67/A / New Survey
Page Nos.3/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
Nos.54/1 and 54/7, 35 Thindal Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District for several decades and they are also paying house tax, electricity consumption charges and water tax, etc., for the buildings in the said land. The petitioners herein have sent representation for assignment of the said land and for issuance of patta in their favour, further, they filed writ petition in W.P.No.1286 of 2011, seeking direction to the Authorities to consider their representation. This Court has passed a common order dated 22.01.2011 in the said writ petition, directing the respondent No.2 - The District Revenue Officer, Erode (hereinafter, DRO) herein to pass orders on the representation of the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks, but, no orders were passed by the DRO. Whileso, the petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter Encroachment Act), calling upon them to remove their occupation over the said land, on the ground that the said land is a "Government Poramboke" and the petitioners herein have encroached certain portions of the land in Survey No.54/7. The petitioners have sent their reply on 28.06.2024 and thereafter, the petitioners have also received another show cause notice dated 05.07.2024 under Section 7 of the
Page Nos.4/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
Encroachment Act, calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 09.07.2024. Whileso, the petitioners challenged the said show cause notices dated 12.06.2024 and 05.07.2024, by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.20509 of 2024.
2.2. Meanwhile, based on the enquiry, the respondent No.3 - The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode (hereinafter, RDO) by an order dated 12.07.2024, rejected the petitioner's request for assignment of land, issuance of patta and passed an order of eviction. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the petitioners have also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, challenging the said notice served under Section 7 of the Encroachment Act.
2.3 In the meantime, the writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20509 of 2024 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 24.07.2024, with the liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2748/2024/A2 dated 12.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 - RDO. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been
Page Nos.5/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
filed by the petitioners.
3.1. On behalf of the Official respondent, the respondent No.2 - DRO filed a counter, wherein, it is stated that the lands in survey Nos.54/1 and 54/7 is on the pathway of Arulmigu Thindal Murugan Temple at Thindal Village, which is situated in Erode to Perundurai road and the said land is classified as "Government Poramboke". It is further stated that the petitioners herein have encroached the said land, constructed a commercial building and leased out some portions of the land for commercial activities. The said land is situated in a busy area and Moufssel bus stop as well as a Women's College are situated adjacent to the said land. Hence, for the purpose of curtailing land encroachment in such area, the respondent No.4 - The Tahsildar, Erode was instructed to conduct inspection, to survey and take action against the encroachers. Accordingly, an inspection and survey was conducted in the said area and it has been found that the said land in survey Nos.54/1 and 54/7 were occupied by the private parties, they are generating income from the Government Poramboke land, by leasing out the same for commercial purpose. Only thereafter, notices were served to the
Page Nos.6/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
petitioners herein under the Encroachment Act, hence the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right over the said land on the ground that they were in long time possession of the said land.
3.2. In the counter, it is further stated that, some portions of the land in Survey Nos.54/1 and 54/7, assigned to eligible persons, since it was not used for temple purposes and the same shall not give any legal right to the petitioners herein to claim that they are entitled to assignment of the land. The caveat was filed to prevent the petitioners from getting any ex-parte orders, in the matters concerning removal of encroachment. Only after thorough enquiry, considering the representation of the petitioners, after giving fair opportunities, the respondent No.3 - RDO had passed the proceedings Na.Ka.No.2748/2024/A2 dated 12.07.2024, within his jurisdiction to handle encroachment and the same is not contravention of the High Court directives. The petitioners are not having any legal right to assignment of the said land and for patta in their favour, to conduct commercial activities in the said land. The petitioners are not landless poor or eligible to claim assignment of land under any of the schemes of the
Page Nos.7/21
valid.
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
Government, thereby the order passed by the respondent No.3 - RDO is valid.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:
upon them to appear before the RDO for an enquiry, for which the petitioners sent a detailed reply on 24.06.2024. Again, the petitioners were
Page Nos.8/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
served with another notice dated 05.07.2024, calling upon them to appear before the RDO for an enquiry on 09.07.2024. Accordingly, on 09.07.2024, the petitioners appeared before the RDO and filed a memo, seeking further time. They have challenged the notices dated 12.06.2024 and 05.07.2024, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.20509 of 2024. During pendency of the above writ petition, the RDO had passed a impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2748/2024/A2 dated 12.07.2024, hence, this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024, directed the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition in W.P.No.20509 of 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Hence, the petitioners have filed this present writ petition, challenging the proceedings dated 12.07.2024, passed by RDO.
Page Nos.9/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
these shops are livelihood of the petitioners and there is no big commercial premises, which was not taken note by the RDO, while passing the impugned order, hence the same is not sustainable. He also submitted that, as per the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1283 to 1286 of 2011 dated 22.01.2011, the respondent No.2 herein is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners, whileso, the respondent No.3 herein has passed the order, which is not legally sustainable, therefore, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents:
Page Nos.10/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
No.3 - RDO is empowered to process the application seeking for assignment and patta and he is entitled to pass orders on the same. Thereby, the RDO passed the order, rejecting the request of the petitioners seeking patta and to remove the encroachment made by the petitioners in the said land. The petitioners are not eligible to get assignment of lands, as a matter of right for the land which is classified as a Government Poramboke and the petitioners are involved in commercial activities in the said land, hence their claim of seeking assignment and patta was properly considered and rejected by the respondent No.3 - RDO. He further submitted that the petitioners were served notices under Encroachment Act and orders under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act also passed, ordering eviction of the petitioners from the subject land. The petitioners have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same is also disposed of, by rejecting the contention of the petitioners, hence nothing survives in this petition and he prays to dismiss the petition.
Page Nos.11/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
Discussions and Conclusions:
Page Nos.12/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
orders. However, the petitioners have not produced any documents to show that whether they have communicated this Order to the DRO and whether they have taken any steps to implement this Order. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.2 - DRO had not passed any order, as per the direction of this Court, per contra, they have been served with show cause notice dated 12.06.2024.
Page Nos.13/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
conducted survey for removal of encroachments in the Erode-Perundurai Highway and during the course of their survey, they found some portions of the lands have been encroached by the petitioners herein, therefore notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act was issued to the petitioners. Subsequently, after enquiry, the impugned proceeding herein has been passed by the respondent No.3 - RDO, by specifically referring about the representation submitted by all the petitioners and their contentions including their claim of possession of the subject land from the year 1967 onwards.
Page Nos.14/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
dated 11.06.2024.
Page Nos.15/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
No.3 - RDO for passing the impugned order.
Page Nos.16/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
" Section 3. Any person who shall unauthorizedly occupy in any area other than the transferred territory any land, which is the property of Government, shall be liable to pay by way of assessment.
(i) If the land so occupied forms an assessed survey number or part thereof, the full assessment of such number for the whole period of his occupation or a part thereof proportionate to the area occupied as the case may be, provided that, for special reasons, the Collector or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may impose the full assessment of such number or any lesser sum irrespective of the area occupied;
Page Nos.17/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
(ii) If the land so occupied be unassessed, an assessment on the area occupied calculated for the same period at the rate imposed on lands of a similar quality in the neighbourhood, or at the highest dry wet rate of the village, as the case may be , or when no such rates exist in such manner as may be prescribed in rules or orders under Section 8.
Provided that payment of assessment under this Section shall not confer any right of occupancy.
Page Nos.18/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
religious activities of the nearby temple. The petitioners being encroachers, they cannot seek equality with those persons, who were granted patta much earlier to them. The entire proceedings against the petitioners are based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, hence we are of the view that the petitioners have not made out their case and there is no need for interference of this Court in the impugned proceedings.
shall be no order as to cost.
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No stn
To
Page Nos.19/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
State Highway 96, Opp. District Court, Tamil Nadu - 638 011.
Page Nos.20/21
W.P.No.22811 of 2024
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
stn
Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.22811 of 2024
18.12.2024
Page Nos.21/21
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to reject the petitioners' claim for patta and issue eviction proceedings?
Whether payment of penal charges under the Encroachment Act confers any right of occupancy or title on the encroacher?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to assignment of Government Poramboke land based on long possession?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rukmani
T.S. Kumar
C. Dhanapal
The District Collector
The District Revenue Officer
The Revenue Divisional Officer
M.SUNDAR
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
