Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1077 (MAD)

Thangavel v. District Collector, Villupuram

2013-02-22

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
Judgment 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 12.12.2007, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction with further direction to the respondents to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of the property situate at survey No.74 Kadayam Village, Nallapalayam post, Villupuram district. 2. In support of the affidavit, it is pleaded that the property in Survey No.74 measuring 60 cents of Kadayam Village, Villupuram district is wrongly classified as "battai poromboke" which is in enjoyment and occupation of the petitioner's family for more than three decades. The petitioner has made huge investment to develop the property, as it was originally "barren" land which was converted into a fertile land. The petitioner does not possess any other holdings except the land referred to above qua which the petitioner has been paying tax to the Government. Even in the "adangal" extract, name of the petitioner finds place. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on several occasions, the petitioner approached the respondents, for grant of patta, but there was no response. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.37700 of 2007 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the third respondent to consider and pass order on the representation of the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that one Ranganathan filed a suit in O.S.No.364 of 2005 in the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur for injunction restraining the respondents from granting patta with respect to S.No.74, Kadayam Village, Nallapalayam post, Villupuram district, on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the pathway. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that there exist another pathway and therefore suit has been filed with malafide intention to grab the property. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents in the suit have taken a positive stand that the property in Survey No.74 was never used as pathway. 7. It is also submitted that the respondent No.3 granted patta of adjacent lands to the occupants, but the petitioner's land alone is deprived of patta. 8. It is also pleaded that the application for grant of patta is pending consideration with the authorities for the years together. 9. 7. It is also submitted that the respondent No.3 granted patta of adjacent lands to the occupants, but the petitioner's land alone is deprived of patta. 8. It is also pleaded that the application for grant of patta is pending consideration with the authorities for the years together. 9. The case of the petitioner further is that State Government vide G.O.No.854, dated 30.12.2006, recommended sanction of patta to those occupants who were in occupation and enjoyment of land including water source poromboke, Maichal land, Mandaiveli, Mayanam land and battai land for more than 10 years. 10. The submission of petitioner is that without deciding the representation as directed by this Court in W.P.No.37700 of 2007, the petitioner has been served with notice under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. In response to the notice, the petitioner issued a legal notice raising objection to the notice issued under section 6 of the Act. But, no reply to the objection has been received. 11. The petitioner submitted, that the impugned notice, on the ground that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, are illegal and without jurisdiction, as the representation of petitioner for grant of patta under the Government policy is pending with the department and till its decision, petitioner cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation. 12. That the impugned order has been passed under the influence of Mr. Ranganathan, a political person / teacher in the locality, who has influence with the authorities and has successfully, restrained the respondents from granting patta in favour of petitioner. (Allegations against Mr. Ranganathan cannot be taken note of, as for the reason best known to the petitioner, though personal allegations of malafide are levelled against him, he has not impleaded as party to this writ petition). 13. (Allegations against Mr. Ranganathan cannot be taken note of, as for the reason best known to the petitioner, though personal allegations of malafide are levelled against him, he has not impleaded as party to this writ petition). 13. The ground of challenge to the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, is on the following grounds: i) That the petitioner is in possession of the land for over a statutory period, which also stands recognised by the State Government by accepting the property tax, shows, that the possession of petitioner is not illegal; ii) That the representation for grant of patta for long possession under Government policy is pending decision with the authorities; iii) That the petitioner has right of assignment of the property as per the policy decision of the State Government to convey the land to the occupants, who are in possession for more than 10 years, as notified vide G.O.No.854, dated 30.12.2006. 14. On consideration, I find the writ petition to be premature. It is admitted case of the petitioner that in response to the notice under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner has not only filed reply, but also raised objections about maintainability of proceedings and decision on the notice is yet to be taken. 15. Similarly, the decision on the representation filed by petitioner for grant of patta in terms of G.O.No.854, dated 30.12.2006 is also pending decision, as no decision has yet been taken on the said representation. 16. Therefore, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as premature. However, it is made clear, that further proceedings in pursuance to the notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, can be taken by the respondents only after passing order on the objection raised by the petitioner and also after deciding the representation filed by the petitioner for allotment of patta. 17. No cost. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.