Mufeela Parveen.a Vs The District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 herein to conduct survey, measurement and fix boundaries of the patta land of the petitioner in T.S.No.3, correlating old S.No.193, Resurvey Ward B, Block No.18, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, within a reasonable time.

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.11079 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4

¶20

herein to conduct survey, measure and fix boundaries of the patta lands of the petitioner in T.S.No.3, correlating to old S.No.193, Resurvey Ward B, Block No.18, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶21

2. The subject property in T.S.No.3, correlating to old S.No.193, Resurvey Ward B, Block No.18, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, to an extent of 3.50.0 hectares, equivalent 8.57 acres, belonged to the petitioner's father under registered sale deed, dated 29.01.1977. The petitioner's father was also issued with UDR patta, in Patta No.F.H.187. The petitioner's father executed settlement deed, dated 05.09.2018, vide Document No.1516/2018 in favour of the petitioner settling 15 cents of land. As per the registered transaction, the petitioner was permitted to occupy further 15 cents of her father's land. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the petitioner to offer 10 cents of her patta land in S.No.193, correlating T.S.No.3 for laying public road. The petitioner states that the official respondents trespassed into

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.11079 of 2023

¶25

her patta lands to an extent of 10 cents and laid the road. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 did not pay any compensation to her under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As the respondents 2 and 3 unauthorisedly dispossessed the petitioner to an extent of 10 cents of lands and prevented the petitioner from using her remaining patta land in T.S.No.3, the petitioner submitted a written representation, dated 18.10.2022 to the respondents 2 and 3. As no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶26

3. The respondents filed a detailed counter denying all the contentions raised in the affidavit. According to the respondents, the lands in S.No.193 correlating S.No.440/3 were recorded as Government Poramboke land in the revenue records to an extent of 3.50.00 hectares (free hold land). The respondents submitted that the petitioner had no right to the property. The respondents further submitted that allegation of the petitioner that her lands were unathorisedly taken by the Government was misleading. According to the respondents, the petitioner was bound to establish her title before the Civil Court and thereafter seek for survey. The respondents therefore submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.11079 of 2023

¶29

4. The title of the petitioner to the subject properties is denied by the

¶30

respondents. Therefore in order to succeed in the writ petition, the petitioner has to establish her title. The petitioner claims title to the property under Document No.40 of 1977, dated 29.01.1977. As rightly contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit, no specific survey number and patta number is given in the document. When the title deed of the petitioner is not clear, the prayer of the petitioner for survey, measurement and fixing the boundaries of the subject lands cannot be countenanced, more so, when the lands are classified as Government Poramboke in the revenue records. The petitioner should therefore establish her title before the competent Civil Court and subject to the out come of the suit, the petitioner can seek for survey of her lands.

¶31

5. In the light of the above discussions, I find no merit in the writ

¶32

petitioner and so it is dismissed. No costs.

¶33

07.01.2025

¶34

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no SN

¶35

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

¶36

4/6