P. Sivasubramanian Vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration

rectify the erroneous classifications of the land bearing (Old Survey No. 13720/A1)-Survey Nos.5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/7, 6/9, 6/10, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/7, 8/8, 8/10, 9/2, 9/5, 9/6, 9/10, 11/2, 11/5, 12/1, 12/2, 22/4, 28/7, 31/9, 33/7, 43/5, 49/1, 49/4 53/4, 13/4, 14/7, 8/9, 9/4, 9/7, 13/3, 6/5, 6/8, 8/6, 9/3, 9/8 and 9/11 situated at Neendakarai 'B' Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, totally measuring to an extent of 6.59 1/2 acres and further directing the respondents to mutate the revenue records in favour of the petitioner and the other co-owners and consequently, to issue patta to them by considering their final representation dated 03.03.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil for Mr.A.Mohamedhaneef

¶22

For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the erroneous classification of the land situated in Old Survey No.13720/A1, New Survey Nos.5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/7, 6/9, 6/10, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/7, 8/8, 8/10, 9/2, 9/5, 9/6, 9/10, 11/2, 11/5, 12/1, 12/2, 22/4, 28/7, 31/9, 33/7, 43/5, 49/1, 49/4 53/4, 13/4, 14/7, 8/9, 9/4, 9/7, 13/3, 6/5, 6/8, 8/6, 9/3,

¶25

Page 2 of 9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶28

9/8 and 9/11, situated at Neendakarai 'B' Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring an extent of 6.59 ½ acres as promboke and further to direct the respondents to mutate the revenue records in favour of the petitioner and other co-owners and consequently, issue patta for them, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025.

¶29

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.M.P.Senthil, for Mr.M.Mohamed Haneef, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

3.It is the case of the petitioner that he and his three brothers are absolute owners of the above mentioned property, measuring an extent of 6.59 ½ acres. Recognizing the petitioner's possession and enjoyment, the erstwhile Travancore State Government granted “Vettozhivu Mara Pattom” in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in title. Based on the said right, the property has been subjected to partition by the petitioner's family members. It is further stated by the petitioner that the subject property has been wrongly classified as Poramboke land. Therefore, the

¶31

Page 3 of 9

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶34

petitioner submitted several representations before the respondents seeking rectification of the erroneous entry and issuance of patta in his name. The last of the representation of the petitioner was submitted on 03.03.2025 and the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court with the above mentioned prayer.

¶35

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by drawing the attention of this Court to the civil decree passed in A.S.No.26 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Nagercoi, submitted that as per the findings of the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot be construed as the absolute owner of the property and therefore, the request of the petitioner for issuance of patta cannot be considered.

¶36

5.The petitioner and the other co-owners filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the Government in O.S.No.53 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and the other co-owners filed a first appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional

¶37

_________ Page 4 of 9

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶40

Sub Court, Nagercoil. The said appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner and others was decreed, declaring their possessory rights over the subject property and the Government was restrained from interfering with the enjoyment of the subject property by the plaintiffs therein, including the petitioner. The Civil Court in its judgment clearly defined the rights of the petitioner in the subject property in the following words and the same reads as follows:-

¶41

As per the recital in the Vettozhivy Mara Pattom it is stated that “ ntl;nlhopT khwhg;ghl;lkhf vOjpr;Rf;nfhz;L ifahz;L i\ ghj;jpapy; ehs;top tpisAj;j cg;gpy; xd;W ghjpAk; msT khwhjJk;ifahz;L khre;NjhWk; Mz;LtNuAk; nfhLj;J Mre;jpujhuKk; re;jjp gpuNtrKk; ntl;nlhopT khwhg;ghl;lkhf ahg;gpr;Rf; nfhs;SkhWk;- nghbT ”

¶42

Only through this documents plaintiffs claimed right for them as well as for the predecessor in title. Here in this District and as per the customs and convention prevailed in Travancore Cochin State Vettozhivu Mara Pattom is an irredee- and irrevocable one. The term Vettozhivy Mara pattom is to be construed that “ chpikia tpl;nlhopje;J khw;w Kbahj .” This cannot be disputed. Since it is a permanent lease confering absolute right with an only condition imposed was to provide the share with manufacture

¶43

Page 5 of 9

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶46

of the salt to the Government. Therefore, this is free from tax. Only for manufacturing of the salt “ ;Xd;W ghjp ” to be paid to the Government.

¶47

6.Therefore, the Civil Court declared the possessory rights of the petitioner and other plaintiffs therein and restrained the Government from interfering with their right to enjoy the property. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has got permanent occupancy right in the subject property. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2025, in the light of the Civil Court decree passed in A.S.No. 26 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil and to pass final orders on its own merits, within a period of sixteen weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any.

¶48

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶49

No costs.

¶50

_________ Page 6 of 9

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶54

05.06.2025

¶55

To

¶56

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.

¶57

2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶58

3.The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶59

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶60

5.The Tahsildar, Agasteeswararam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

S.SOUNTHAR,J

cp

Page 7 of 9

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

¶65

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶66

W.P.(MD)No.15267 of 2025

¶67

Dated: 05.06.2025

¶68

_________ Page 8 of 9

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.(MD) No.15267 of 2025

¶71

W.P(MD)No.15267 of 2025

¶72

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶73

This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned,' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶74

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the first paragraph of the order, the word “Survey No.” has been erroneously described as “New Survey Nos.”

¶75