Allowed

P.Velayutham v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar (4th respondent) to implement the Assistant Settlement Officer's orders dated 19.05.2023 and 14.07.2023 regarding the issuance of patta for agricultural and house lands in emotional and grievous. The court directed the implementation within eight weeks after notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to the 4th respondent to implement the orders passed by the 2nd respondent to issue patta and make revenue entries within eight weeks after notice.

P.Velayutham Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

P.Velayutham

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

¶11

Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam,

¶12

Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶13

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Survey and Settlement Development, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to implement the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings

¶17

_________Page 1 of 10

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶20

in Tha.Pa.62/C.E/Tha Na Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023 dated 19.05.2023 and the proceedings in Tha.Pa.173/C.E/ Tha.Na. Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023 dated 14.07.2023 enabling the petitioner to get patta in respect of his house and agricultural lands Old S.Nos. 23, 39, 39, 39, 53 and 54 in New S.Nos.23/78, 39/6, 39/9, 39/20, 53/18 and 54/6 to the extent of 0.02.5, 0.24.5, 0.05.0, 0.05.0, 0.03.0 and 0.03.5 respectively ares situated at No. 51, Karanapatti Village, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District by making suitable revenue entries in the records.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

A mandamus is sought for by the petitioner directing the fourth respondent to implement the order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Tha.Pa.62/C.E/Tha Na Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023, dated 19.05.2023 and the proceedings in Tha.Pa.173/C.E/ Tha.Na. Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023 dated 14.07.2023 enabling the petitioner to get patta in respect of his house and agricultural lands in Old S.Nos. 23, 39, 39, 39, 53 and 54, New S.Nos.

¶24

_________Page 2 of 10

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶27

23/78, 39/6, 39/9, 39/20, 53/18 and 54/6 to the extent of 0.02.5, 0.24.5, 0.05.0, 0.05.0, 0.03.0 and 0.03.5 ares respectively situated at No. 51, Karanapatti Village, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District by making suitable revenue entries in the records.

¶28

The petitioner has premised his case on the following contentions:

¶29

He would submit that his son and he are in possession and enjoyment of ryotwari plot and punja land comprised in S.Nos.23/78, 39/6, 39/9, 39/20, 53/18 and 54/6, measuring an extent of 0.02.5, 0.24.5, 0.05.0, 0.05.0, 0.03.0 and 0.03.5 ares respectively of the aforesaid village. These lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition Act in the year 1965 and this acquisition was challenged by the owners in W.P.No.2720 of 1965 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 06.07.1965. The land owners went on appeal right up to the Supreme Court in S.C.P.No.267 of 1967 and S.C.M.P.No.313 of 1066 and these cases were also dismissed on 19.11.1970. Therefore, the acquisition came to be upheld. Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.28 of 1973 was filed on

¶30

_________Page 3 of 10

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶33

the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, which was dismissed on 18.12.1973. The appeals that followed thereafter viz., A.S.Nos.912, 913, 914 and 1202 of 1979 and 246 and 517 of 1986 also were disposed of with a common order in and by which G.O.No.1005, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1997 came to be passed recognizing the above lands as minor inam lands. Therefore, with effect from the notifying date, Karanapatti Village was completely taken under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition Conversion into and Ryotwari) Act and the Government was vested with full rights over the same. It is submitted that enquiry notices were issued to the lands owners and after following the due process as contemplated under the Act, the lands were allotted to the petitioner's father and others and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands for over 60 years. Patta enquiry was also conducted from 2005 onwards and the same came to be ended on 14.07.2023 by the second respondent and the issuance of patta in respect of S.Nos.23/78, 39/6, 39/9, 39/20, 53/18 and 54/6 with their respective extents under the Act was issued. The petitioner's son had filed representations on 26.04.2024 and 18.06.2024 for issuance of the patta.

¶34

_________Page 4 of 10

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶37

The fourth respondent informed him that the files were retained at the second respondent's office and therefore, if the same were received, patta would be effected. Since the second respondent already passed orders directing the issue of patta and since a year lapsed after the order, without the petitioner being granted patta, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶38

3. Heard both counsels.

¶39

The second respondent by his proceedings dated 19.05.2023 had

¶40

passed the following order:

¶41

“vdNt> kDjhuh; / mDgtjhuh; jpU.g.NtyhAjk; j/ng.godpag;gd; vd;gth; fhuzg;gl;b fpuhkk;> Gy vz; 23/78 0.02.5 Vh;]; tp];jPuzk; nfhz;l epyj;jpy; fl;lg;gl;Ls;s fl;blj;jpw;F jkpo;ehL rpW ,dhk; (xopg;G kw;Wk; uaj;Jthhpahf khw;wYk;) rl;lk; 1963 (j.eh.rl;lk; 30/63) gphpT 13(1)-d;gb gl;lh ngw KO jFjpAilatuhfpwhh; vd KbT nra;J> tof;fpil Gyj;jpy; mike;Js;s fl;blj;jpw;F fPo;f;fz;l ml;ltizapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;lthW gl;lh toq;fp gphpT 13(1)-d; fPo; MizapLfpNwd;.

¶42

_________Page 5 of 10

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶45

mlltiz;

¶46

Gjf;Nfhl;il khtl;lk;> nghd;dkuhtjp tl;lk;>51.fhuzg;gl;b fpuhkk;

¶47

t. vz;.	Gioa Gy vz;	Gjpa vz;/cl;g	Gy phpT	gug;gsT ncwf;./Vh;	TifghL	Mizapd; tpguk;
(1)	(2)	(3)		(4)	(5)	(6)
1	23	23/78		0.02.5	uaj;J kid	jpU.g.NtyhAjk;
jkpo; rl;l Mi	ehL rpW k;30/63 zaplg;gLf	,dhk; gphpT pwJ”	(xop 1	g;G kw;Wk; 3(1)-d; f	uaj;Jth Po; ki	hpahf khw;wYk;) dgl;lh toq;fp

¶48

This order has been passed as early as on 19.05.2023. Thereafter, on 14.07.2023, the second respondent had passed an order with reference to the petitioner's agricultural lands, which reads as follows:

¶49

“vdNt> kDjhuh; / mDgtjhuh; jpU.g.NtyhAjk; j/ng.godpag;gd; vd;gth; 51> fhuzg;gl;b fpuhkk;> jhth Gy vz;fs; 39 / 6 , 39 / 9, 39 / 20 , 53 / 18 kw;Wk; 54/6-w;F fl;Lg;gl;l 0.24.5> 0.05.0> 0.05.0> 0.03.0 kw;Wk; 0.03.5 Vh;]; tp];jPuzq;fs; nfhz;l eQ;ir tptrha epyq;fSf;F jkpo;ehL rpW ,dhk; (xopg;G kw;Wk; uaj;Jthhpahf khw;wYk;) rl;lk; 1963 (jkpo;ehL

¶50

_________Page 6 of 10

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶53

rl;lk; 30/63) gphpT 9(1)(ii)-d;gb gl;lh ngw KO jFjpAilatuhfpwhh; vd KbT nra;J> tof;fpil eQ;ir epyq;fSf;F fPo;f;fz;l ml;ltizapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;lthW gl;lh toq;fp gphpT 11-d;fPo; MizapLfpNwd;.

¶54

mlltiz;

¶55

Gjf;Nfhl;il khtl;lk;> nghd;dkuhtjp tl;lk;>51.fhuzg;gl;b fpuhkk;

¶56

t. vz;.	Gioa Gy vz;	Gjpa Gy vz;/cl;gphpT	gug;gsT ncwf;./Vh;	TifghL	Mizapd; tpguk;
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1	39	39/6	0.24.5	uaj;J eQ;ir	jpU.g.NtyhAjk; j/ng.godpag;gd;
2	39	39/9	0.05.0
3	39	39/20	0.05.0
4	53	53/18	0.03.0
5	54	54/6	0.03.5

¶57

jkpo;ehL rpW ,dhk; (xopg;G kw;Wk; uaj;Jthhpahf khw;wYk;) rl;lk 30 ; /63 gphpT 9(1)( ii )-d; fPo; gl;lh toq;f KbT nra;J gphpT 1-d;fPo; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”

¶58

In response to the respondent's query under the Right to Information Act, it has been stated that there was no objection for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. The Under Secretary to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department has also forwarded necessary application to the first respondent asking him to revert about the steps

¶59

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

¶60

_________Page 7 of 10

¶61

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶62

taken. This communication has been issued on 17.05.2024. However, there has been no further action. It is rather unfortunate that despite such overwhelming directions, the fourth respondent is deliberately shirking the statutory duty imposed upon him. Therefore, a mandamus is issued to the fourth respondent to implement the order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Tha.Pa.62/C.E/Tha Na Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023 dated 19.05.2023 and the proceedings in Tha.Pa.173/C.E/ Tha.Na. Sattam 30/63 Karanapatti (Vu-1) 2023 dated 14.07.2023 and pass orders after issuing notice to all the interested parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No

¶64

costs.

¶65

23.08.2024

¶66

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶67

abr

¶68

_________Page 8 of 10

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶71

Page 9 of 10

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

P.T.ASHA, J.

abr

1.The Commissioner, Land Administration Department, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶78

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Survey and Settlement Development, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶79

3.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶80

W.P.(MD) No.20163 of 2024

¶81

4.The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶82

Dated: 23.08.2024

¶83

Page 10 of 10

¶84

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

P.Velayutham v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Velayutham v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Muthukumar Vs The District Collector

Sethuraman Vs the Revenue Divisional

M.Muniasamy Vs The Sub-Collector

Anantharajan Vs Sebasthiyayee

Akilandam Vs Sekar

Ammani Vs The District Collector