Disposed

Kanniyammal v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC28 Oct 2024WP/31826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought patta over poramboke cart-track land claiming 50 years' possession. Records showed classification as Sarkar Poramboke (Pattai/Cart Track), so patta direction was declined. Respondents were directed not to disturb her possession except by due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to disturb petitioner's possession except by following due process of law; no direction to consider patta request; no costs.

Kanniyammal Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶7

Kanniyammal .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Revenue Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Land Administration Department 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005

¶11

3.The District Collector Chengalpattu District

¶12

4.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribunal Welfare Officer Collectorate Complex Chengalpattu District

¶13

5.The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records District Survey Office Collectorate Complex Chengalpattu District

¶14

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 045

¶15

7.The Tahsildar Pallavaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 043 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/6

¶17

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶18

8.The Village Administrative Officer Pallavaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 043

¶19

The Head Surveyor Office of Pallavaram Taluk Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043 .. Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 9th respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 31.07.2024 by conducting through enquiry to issue patta record situated on a Pattaiporomboke (Cart Track) at S.No. 251/4 situate at No.16, 1st Street, IyyappanKoil, Madipakkam Chennai-600 091 to the petitioners name.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkateswaran

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner herein seeks for a direction to respondent to consider the

¶25

petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2024 seeking patta in respect of the property classified as Pattaiporomboke (Cart Track) at S.No. 251/4 situated at No.16, 1st Street, IyyappanKoil, Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 091.

¶26

It is the case of the writ petitioner that she has been in possession and

¶27

enjoyment of the above mentioned property for more than 50 years and she submitted a representation seeking issuance of patta based on her long possession and the same has not been considered by the official respondents. It

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶31

is also further submitted that the official respondents are attempting to disturb her possession without following due process of law. Hence, seeks a direction as mentioned above.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the subject property is classified as Pattai Poramboke in Village A-Register and other revenue records and hence, the request of the petitioner for grant of patta cannot be considered. He also produced a copy of the A-Register and on perusal of the same, it would suggest that the S.No.251/4, over which the petitioner claiming right, is classified as Sarkar Poramboke and in the remarks column it is mentioned as Pattai (Cart Track).

¶33

In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to issue any directions to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of patta. However, it is asserted by the petitioner that she is in possession of the property and her possession of the property is attempted to be disturbed by the respondents without following due process of law. Hence, the respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner except by following due process of law.

¶34

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

¶35

3/6

¶36

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶38

28.10.2024

¶39

dhk Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

¶41

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Revenue Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

¶42

2.The Commissioner of Land Administration Department 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005

¶43

3.The District Collector Chengalpattu District

¶44

4.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribunal Welfare Officer Collectorate Complex Chengalpattu District

¶45

5.The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records District Survey Office Collectorate Complex Chengalpattu District

¶46

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 045

¶47

7.The Tahsildar Pallavaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 043

¶48

8.The Village Administrative Officer https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

4/6

¶50

WP.No.31826 of 2024

¶51

Pallavaram Taluk Office Chennai – 600 043

¶52

The Head Surveyor Office of Pallavaram Taluk Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043

¶53

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

¶54

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

5/6

WP.No.31826 of 2024

dhk

W.P.No.31826 of 2024

28.10.2024

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

¶61

6/6

Kanniyammal v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanniyammal v. the Principal Secretary to Government

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

Navaneethakannan Vs the District Collector

D.Stanley Peter, Vs the Principal Secretry to the Government of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.Guitta Vs the Government of Puducherry

M.Anuradha Vs the District Collector

S.Vijayalakshmi Vs the District Registrar

V.Kalarani Vs the District Collector