C.Loganathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order in na.Ka.No.6076/2023/A4 dated 14.11.2023 passed by the 5th respondent and consequently in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceeding R2/6286656/2023 dated 26.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the petitioners' possession and grant the Patta to the petitioners to the lands situated in the Survey No. 182/2 to an total extent of 20 cents at Door No. 2 to 7, 3rd main Road Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk Chengalpattu District.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mutharasau

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 5^th respondent dated 14.11.2023 and the consequential impugned order passed

¶31

2 / 8

¶32

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

¶33

by the 2^nd respondent dated 26.12.2023 and for a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioners possession in the subject property in Survey No.182/2 and to issue patta in the name of the petitioners.

¶34

2.The case of the petitioners is that the subject property in Survey No.182/2 was a grama natham land. They were in possession and enjoyment of the property and also they had constructed houses. However, proceedings were initiated for evicting the petitioners from their dwelling house. Such action was taken pursuant to the orders passed in the various writ petitions on the ground that this property formed part of the Chitlapakkam Lake. The specific case of the petitioners is that Chitlapakkam Lake is situated in Survey No.256 and whereas the petitioners were having their houses at Survey No.182 [Part]. Without verifying any documents and without making any spot inspections, the demolition order was passed and the petitioners were evicted from the property.

¶35

3.Pursuant to the above, the petitioners took steps to ascertain through the Right to Information Act, the particulars regarding the patta that has been issued in Survey No.182 and also to find out as to when Survey No.182/2 was reclassified as Government poramboke land [Eri]. The petitioners were able to get sufficient details to the effect that patta has been granted to various persons on subdividing Survey No.182. That apart, there was absolutely no record available to show as to when the

¶36

3 / 8

¶37

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

¶38

lands in Survey No.182 was reclassified as Government poramboke land [Eri]. It was also informed to the petitioners that Survey No.182 has a total extent of 75 ares and it has been classified as Ryot Punjai.

¶39

4.In the light of the information that was provided to the petitioners, the petitioners submitted a representation before the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent through impugned proceedings dated 14.11.2023, rejected the claim made by the petitioners and refused to grant patta in their name. That apart, the Commissioner of Land Administration through endorsement dated 26.12.2023, refused to entertain the appeal petition filed by the petitioners. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

¶40

5.The specific stand taken by the respondents is that Survey No.182/2 was always classified as a Government poramboke land [Eri]. It was further submitted that there was no reclassification and this classification was available before the UDR scheme and also after the UDR scheme. They have taken a further stand that there was no subdivision made in Survey No.182/2 and subdivision was actually made only in Survey Nos.182/1 and 182/3 which did not fall within the classification of a Government poramboke [Eri]. All those lands are classified as Ryotwari Punjai. In view of the same, the respondents have refused to grant any patta to the petitioners and accordingly, they have sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

4 / 8

¶42

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

¶43

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶44

7.The petitioners were evicted from the property based on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The claim made by the petitioners is that the Division Bench had directed the eviction of those who were occupying the waterbody in Survey No.256 and whereas the petitioners who were in possession of Survey No.182 [part] were evicted taking advantage of the said order. It is contended that the lands occupied by the petitioners is a Ryotwari Punjai and it has been wrongly reclassified as Government poramboke [Eri].

¶45

8.The materials placed before this Court by way of information provided under the Right to Information Act, shows that Survey No.182/2 is classified as a Government poramboke [Eri]. Insofar as Survey Nos.182/1 and 182/3, it has undergone subdivision and those lands have been classified as Ryotwari Punjai. Patta has also been issued for those who are in possession of the same. Therefore, the patta that was issued to those land owners, will not come to the aid of the petitioners who were admittedly occupying Survey No.182/2.

¶46

9.There is no material to show that any patta has been issued with respect to the lands in Survey No.182/2. That apart, there is also no material to show that

¶47

5 / 8

¶48

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

¶49

Survey No.182/2 was subdivided at any point of time. Obviously, no patta can be issued for Survey No.182/2 since it has been classified as a waterbody. If any such patta is issued, it will amount to violation of the order passed by the Division Bench and will result in a contempt. Therefore, the classification of the lands in Survey Nos.182/1 and 182/3 and the patta that has been issued for those who are occupying the lands, will not come to the aid of the petitioners.

¶50

10.The petitioners have taken a stand that even Survey No.182/2 was initially classified as Ryotwari Punjai and it was subsequently reclassified as Government poramboke [Eri]. However, a specific stand has been taken by the respondents to the effect that Survey No.182/2 always remained as a Government poramboke [Eri] and there was no reclassification and this situation continues even after the UDR scheme.

¶51

11.The petitioners were evicted pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench. If at all the petitioners had any materials to show that such eviction was illegal, the petitioners can only go before the Division Bench and seek for the review of the order by placing all the materials. Instead, the petitioners based on some the information gathered under the Right to Information Act, have approached this Court seeking for restoration of possession and for issuance of patta. If such relief is granted, it will run contrary to the earlier direction issued by the Division Bench. This is yet another ground which goes against the petitioners.

¶52

6 / 8

¶53

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

¶54

12.In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 5^th respondent dated 14.11.2023 and the 2^nd respondent dated 26.12.2023 and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶55

17.04.2025

¶56

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary of Government Department of Revenue, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary of Government Department of Public Works, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 4.The District Collector Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu. 5.The District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu District. 6.The Revenue Divisional Officer The Revenue Division Office Tambaram, Chengalpattu District. 7.The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk, Chennai 600 064. 8.The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department, Padapai.

¶57

7 / 8

¶58

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

¶59

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶60

KP

¶61

Writ Petition No.26153 of 2024

¶62

17.04.2025