Allowed

Tamil Nadu Schedule Tribe(Malayali) Pervai v. the Principal Secretary Revenue Department

Madras HC20 Mar 2024WP/3017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed an order by the Commissioner of Land Administration that violated a prior final order directing land survey for members of a Scheduled Tribe association. The impugned order rejecting their land claim was set aside, and the authorities were directed to implement the earlier direction within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to implement the earlier order by surveying and issuing patta within three months.

Tamil Nadu Schedule Tribe(Malayali) Pervai Vs the Principal… — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.3017 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.03.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P. No.3017 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.3297, 3298 and 3299 of 2024

¶7

Tamil Nadu Scheduled Tribe (Malayali) Peravai (Regd. No.307/93) Represented by its President, M.Govindhan No.15, 2nd street, Kambar Nagar, Chennai - 600 082 … Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009

¶10

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai - 600 015

¶11

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 006

¶12

The District Collector, Villupuram District Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar Villupuram - 605 602

¶13

1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P. No.3017 of 2024

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi Taluk Kachirapalayam Road Villupuram - 606 213

¶16

The District Forest Officer Villupuram District Villupuram - 605 502

¶17

The Special Tahsildar (Forest Settlement Officer) Kallakurichi Taluk Office Complex Kallakurichi - 606 202

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.K5/5007760/2023 and consequently directing the respondents to survey, identify and issue patta to the Malayalis of Kalrayan Hills who are the members of the petitioner and are in possession and enjoyment of the lands situate Kalrayan Hills and for other consequential relief as are deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Ashok Kumar for Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶21

2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P. No.3017 of 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

¶25

11.01.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings

¶26

Na.Ka.No.K5/5007760/2023 and consequently directing the respondents to

¶27

survey, identify and issue patta to the Malayalis of Kalrayan Hills who are

¶28

the members of the petitioner Association and are in possession and

¶29

enjoyment of the lands situate in Kalrayan Hills and for other consequential relief that are deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner/Association submits that

¶31

the they had earlier filed W.P. Nos.34864 & 6818 of 2018 seeking patta in

¶32

favour of the members of the petitioner/Association in respect of the land

¶33

in question and this Court vide order dated 30.03.2023 directed the

¶34

Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai to depute a Tahsildar to

¶35

survey the subject lands including other lands which are alleged to have

¶36

been vested with the Government lands and to file a report and on receipt

¶37

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P. No.3017 of 2024 of the report, the Commissioner of Land Administration was directed to

¶39

decide the issue by conducting the enquiry as to the pre-existing rights of

¶40

the Malayalis of the Kalrayan Hills. The operative portion of the order is extracted as follows:

¶41

“6. Upon careful perusal of the materials

¶42

available on record and in view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this court without going into the merits of the issue directs the Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, to depute the Tahsildar concerned to survey the subject lands including the other lands such as Forest Lands, Dry lands, Wet Lands and other Poramboke lands which are alleged to have been vested with the Government lands and after completing the aforesaid exercise, the Tahsildar concerned is directed to submit a report before the Commissioner of Land Administration. On the receipt of the same, the Commissioner of Land Administration is directed to decide the issue by conducting the enquiry as

¶43

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P. No.3017 of 2024 to the pre-existing rights of the Malayalis of the

¶45

Kalrayan Hills and pass appropriate orders on the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶46

7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid direction. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

¶47

Despite the directions of this Court dated 30.03.2023, now the 3rd

¶48

respondent/The Commissioner of Land Administration has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner/Association which is

¶49

against law and violative of specific directions of this order passed in the

¶50

above said writ petitions. Thefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶51

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶52

It is seen that the respondents have not challenged the above said

¶53

order of this Court dated 30.03.2023. They neither filed appeal nor filed

¶54

review. As such, the said order of this Court attained finality. However, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P. No.3017 of 2024 without implementing the order of this Court, now the 3rd respondent has

¶56

passed the impugned order. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶57

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is

¶58

quashed.

¶59

The respondents are directed to depute a Tashildar to implement

¶60

the order of this Court dated 30.03.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.34864 & 6818 of 2018, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy

¶61

of this order.

¶62

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶63

Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶64

20.03.2024

¶65

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2

¶66

6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P. No.3017 of 2024

¶68

¶69

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009

¶70

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai - 600 015

¶71

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 006

¶72

The District Collector, Villupuram District Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar Villupuram - 605 602

¶73

The Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi Taluk Kachirapalayam Road Villupuram - 606 213

¶74

The District Forest Officer Villupuram District Villupuram - 605 502

¶75

The Special Tahsildar (Forest Settlement Officer) Kallakurichi Taluk Office Complex Kallakurichi - 606 202

¶76

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

W.P. No.3017 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.

Ksa-2

W.P. No.3017 of 2024

20.03.2024

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tamil Nadu Schedule Tribe(Malayali) Pervai v. the Principal Secretary Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu Schedule Tribe(Malayali) Pervai v. the Principal Secretary Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramaswamy Vs Land Acquisition Cum District Collector

M.Palaniappan Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

Shyamaladevi Vs the Commissioner of Land Administration

C.Srinivasan Vs the District Registrar

R.Chellammal Vs the District Collector

P.Santha Kumar Vs the District Collector