Disposed¶31

Jassentha Joseph v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Jul 2025WP/32789/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.32789 of 2017; Madras High Court; Jassentha Joseph v. District Collector Thiruvallur; Chennai Corporation; Cooum river boundary demarcation; fencing/compound wall over patta land; Poramboke; Town Survey Register; patta restoration; representation dated 11.12.2017; District Revenue Officer enquiry; notice and personal hearing; speaking order; status quo; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: the District Revenue Officer to hold an enquiry (with notice and personal hearing) and pass a speaking order; status quo as on date to be maintained till then; respondents permitted to erect fencing/compound wall only based on the enquiry outcome; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶31

Jassentha Joseph Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may put up fencing / compound wall over lands claimed by the petitioner as her patta lands, in the course of demarcating the boundaries of the Cooum river. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The jurisdictional District Revenue Officer will issue notice to the petitioner and others, hold an enquiry with personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass a speaking order.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The respondents can put up fencing / erect compound wall only based on the outcome of the said enquiry by the District Revenue Officer.

¶30

Key takeaways

Until the enquiry concludes, the status quo as on date shall be maintained.ratio¶30
The Court expressly clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the matter.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Madras (G.R. Swaminathan & V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.), in W.P.No.32789 of 2017 (Jassentha Joseph v. District Collector, Thiruvallur and others), disposed of the petition under Article 226 seeking to forbid the respondents from fencing/putting up a compound wall over lands the petitioner claims as patta lands (purchased by sale deed dated 02.11.1999) and to restore revenue records wrongly showing them as Poramboke in the Town Survey Register. The Court directed the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer to issue notice, hold an enquiry with personal hearing and pass a speaking order; respondents may erect fencing/compound wall only based on the enquiry outcome; status quo as on date to be maintained meanwhile; the Court made clear it had not gone into the merits. Disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.32789 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 23.05.2025

¶4

Pronounced on : .......07.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶7

W.P.No.32789 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.36122 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.24287 of 2018

Jassentha Joseph

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶12

2.The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai.

¶13

3.The Zonal Officer, VII Zone, Chennai.

¶14

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambattur, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from putting up the wall fencing or compound in the property comprising in Survey No.429/3A2B measuring 7.5 cents in Patta No.1047 and Survey No.429/3J, 429/2E measuring 17.5 cents in Patta No.996 situated at Mugappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2017 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to restore the revenue records as patta land which was wrongly mentioned as Poramboke in Town Survey Register.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.32789 of 2017

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Rajendiran For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hazan Faizal, Additional Government Pleader for R4. Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate for R1 and Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu for R2 and R3

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

2.The case of the petitioner is that petition mentioned lands are her patta lands. According to her, they were purchased by a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1999 (Document No.8824/1999) on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvallur from the previous owner. The petitioner also claims that patta stands in her name. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are now trying to put up fence / compound wall even on her patta lands.

¶25

3.The stand of the respondents is that only the boundaries of cooum river are being demarcated and nothing else.

¶26

4.The petitioner had already given representation dated 11.12.2017. The jurisdictional District Revenue Officer will issue notice to the petitioner and others and pass a speaking order after holding an enquiry. The petitioner will be given personal hearing and a speaking order shall be passed. The respondents can put up fencing / erect

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.32789 of 2017

¶30

compound wall based on the outcome of the said enquiry. Till then, the status quo as on date, shall be maintained. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶31

5.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

(G.R.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.) ...07.2025

¶33

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

¶34

ias

¶35

To:

¶36