Disposed

M.Purushodaman, v. the Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC12 Dec 2024WP/29637/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to remove encroachments on 5.89 acres of classified Grazing Grounds in Survey No.105, Nolambur Village. The Court recorded that the State has initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, preserved all rights of the private respondent, held the pending civil suit untrammelled, and closed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Purushodaman, Vs the Commissioner of Land Administration — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶7

M. Purushodaman Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Commissioner of Land Administration Land Administration Department II Floor, Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 600 005

¶10

The District Collector Chennai District Collectorate “Ma Singaravelar Maligai” Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001

¶11

The Tahsildar Maduravoyal Taluk Bharathi Salai Phase – III Nolambur Chennai 600 037

¶12

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings Chennai 600 003

¶13

Mageswaran Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1/12

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶17

seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments in the land classified as “Grazing Grounds” measuring an extent of 5 acres 89 cents situated in Nolambur Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District, comprised in Survey No.105 and maintain the same as a Grazing Ground free from any encroachment in view of the petitioner's representations dated 20.10.2020, 28.10.2020 and 17.04.2024.

¶18

For petitioner Mr. R. Lohith For RR 1 to 3 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Govt. Advocate

¶19

For R4 Ms. Vanitha Joice Rani Standing Counsel

¶20

For R5 Mr. K.M. Kodaiarasu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

¶23

Captioned 'writ petition' (for brevity 'WP') was earlier listed before

¶24

another Hon'ble Division Bench and in the listing on 14.10.2024, another Hon'ble Division Bench made the following proceedings/order:

¶25

'W.P.No.29637 of 2024

¶26

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶28

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶29

Petition seeks a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to remove encroachments on the land in Survey No.105.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/12

¶32

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶33

According to petitioner, the revenue records indicate that land in Survey No.105 is grazing land. Petitioner has also annexed to the petition a response received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mentions one Prabhu has encroached on 0.50 cents of land by putting up a compound wall and he has a court order to that effect. It is also mentioned that the said Survey No.105 is subdivided into two parts Survey Nos.105/1 and 105/2. It is also stated that no patta has been granted in respect of the land in Survey No.105/1 and one Maheswaran (V.P.M.Construction) is enjoying the land in Survey No.105/2. Maheswaran of V.P.M.Construction is fifth respondent to the petition. The report under the Right to Information Act, 2005 also states that Survey No.105/2 is classified as Grama Natham.

¶34

Mr.Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader, is requesting for two weeks' time for taking instructions.

¶35

We have to note that notwithstanding the Deputy Tahsildar, who is the Public Information Officer, noting on 6.1.2020 that one Prabhu is encroaching on 0.50 cents of land and fifth respondent is enjoying Survey No.105/2, no steps seem to have been taken by the Tahsildar to call for details.

¶36

We note that petitioner has also made a representation on 17.4.2024, to which, as averred in the petition, there has been no response.

¶37

The Tahsildar, who is third respondent, is directed to explain all these points in the affidavit in reply, because it is the responsibility of the Tahsildar to ensure that there is no encroachment on government land. The affidavit shall be filed and copy served by 28.10.2024. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served by 7.11.2024.

¶38

Notice shall also be issued to fifth respondent. Private notice is also permitted and affidavit of service shall be filed at least one week before the next date. If fifth respondent wishes to file any reply, it may do so and serve a copy thereof within two weeks of receiving notice, either private or through the court.

¶39

Stand over to 11.11.2024.'

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

3/12

¶42

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶43

The aforementioned proceedings shall now be read as an

¶44

integral part and parcel of this order. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to clarify (for the sake of specificity) that Survey No.105 in aforereferred proceedings is a reference to land situate in Survey No.105 in Nolambur Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District' (for the sake of convenience and clarity 'said land').

¶45

We are informed that there have been sub-divisions. Nonetheless, writ petitioner is concerned with original Survey No.105 admeasuring 5 acres and 89 cents or in other words, 5.89 acres. This 5.89 acres in Survey No.105 in Nolambur Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District is being referred to as 'said land'.

¶46

After the aforesaid listing, captioned WP was listed before this

¶47

Court on 11.12.2024 and this Court made the following proceedings:

¶48

4/12

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶51

'W.P.No.29637 of 2024

¶52

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶53

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR. J.,]

¶54

There is no representation for writ petitioner either in the physical Court or on 'Videoconferencing' {'VC'} platform. However, Ms.S.Vanitha Joice Rani, learned counsel for R4 and Mr.K.M.Kodaiarasu, learned counsel for R5 are before us in the physical Court. To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a daily / regular / routine feature in this Court.

¶55

With the intention of giving an opportunity to writ petitioner and learned counsel for writ petitioner, list this matter again tomorrow but under the cause list caption 'FOR DISMISSAL'.

¶56

List on 12.12.2024.'

¶57

Adverting to aforementioned 11.12.2024 proceedings, Mr.R.Lohith, learned counsel for writ petitioner, expresses regret for missing

¶58

the matter in the previous listing. Nonetheless, learned counsel is ready to make submissions today.

¶59

As regards official respondents (RR 1 to 3), Mr. T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, is before us. As regards Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation (R4), Ms. S. Vanitha Joice Rani, learned Standing Counsel, is before us. As regards private respondent (R5) Mr.K.M. Kodaiarasu, learned counsel, is before us.

¶60

5/12

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶63

Pursuant to the aforementioned 14.10.2024 proceedings made

¶64

by the other Hon'ble Division Bench, third respondent (jurisdictional Tahsildar) has filed a status report dated 07.11.2024. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the status report are relevant and scanned reproduction of the same is as under:

¶65

6/12

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶68

It is now clear from the status report that State has identified

¶69

some encroachments and proceedings have been initiated under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) ( for brevity 'said 1905 Act').

¶70

7/12

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶73

Before we proceed further, we make it clear that this Court has

¶74

repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. The reason inter alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 (District Collector is the appellate authority) and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A (Section 10-A(3) to be precise) of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self contained Code in every sense of the expression.

¶75

When proceedings under 1905 Act which are said to have been kick started continue, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of private respondent (R5) remain preserved, i.e., it is open to private respondent (R5) to reply to the Section 7 notice raising all contentions, including contentions raised in the captioned WP by way of a counter affidavit.

¶76

8/12

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶79

Be that as it may, another facet of the captioned matter is a suit being O.S. No.57 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Poonamallee (for the sake clarity and convenience 'said suit'). The said suit has been filed by fifth respondent (Mageswaran) before us, along with one G.Kalavathi, as co-plaintiff, and the suit has been filed against 7 private respondents and 3 official defendants. The suit has been filed with a prayer for declaration that sale deed dated 18.02.2000 registered under document no.980/2000 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Konnur, is null and void. The suit also, inter alia , seeks declaration that the plaintiffs are possessory title holders of land comprised in Survey No.105/2. There are other limbs of suit prayer which pertain to injunction but we make it clear that the suit which is now next scheduled to come up on 08.01.2025 at trial stage will continue on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order and or other proceedings under 1905 Act.

¶80

In the light of the narrative thus far, we find that it will suffice to record the stated position of the learned State counsel that proceedings under 1905 Act have commenced, with a rider that rights and contentions are preserved and the civil suit will continue on its own merits and in accordance with law. This will suffice for disposal of captioned WP.

¶81

9/12

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶84

Ergo , sequitur is captioned WP is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner with preservation of rights and observations in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 12.12.2024

¶86

Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No cad

¶87

10/12

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶89

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶90

¶91

The Commissioner of Land Administration Land Administration Department II Floor, Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 600 005

¶92

The District Collector Chennai District Collectorate “Ma Singaravelar Maligai” Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001

¶93

The Tahsildar Maduravoyal Taluk Bharathi Salai Phase – III Nolambur Chennai 600 037

¶94

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings Chennai 600 003

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶96

11/12

¶97

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

M. SUNDAR, J.

and

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

W.P. No.29637 of 2024

¶103

12.12.2024

¶104

12/12

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Purushodaman, v. the Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Purushodaman, v. the Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemalatha Vs The State Human Rights Commission

S.Shobana Vs The Registrar

R.Raja Robert Vs The State Human Rights

Tvl Lakshmi Paints Stores Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Jeyaraman Vs the District Collector

M.Pari Vs the District Collector