Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2560 (MAD)

Marimuthu v. District Collector, Ramanathapuram

2014-08-12

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 28.02.2014 by which the petitioner's request for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the property in question is a Government poramboke land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without reference to the judgment passed in A.S.No.111 of 2000, dated 09.06.2003 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner's predecessor was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.48 of 1995 was decreed as prayed for. It is further submitted that by virtue of the said decree the petitioner is entitled to be continue in possession and enjoyment of the property as a rightful owner. With these facts when the petitioner approached the respondents for grant of patta, the application was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.19813 of 2013 which was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner's request has been rejected on the ground that as per the revenue records the land in question has been recorded as Government land. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader relying on the counter affidavit submitted that the land in question was allotted to fishermen and they were in occupation of the same and subsequently, the assignment was also cancelled on violation of the conditions of assignment. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that a suit in O.S.No.48 of 1995 was filed and same was dismissed against which an appeal was filed by Mahaboob Mariam Beevi and others in A.S.No.111 of 2000 was allowed. The petitioner claims title through the said Mahaboob Mariam Beevi and others who are the appellants in A.S.No.111 of 2000. Therefore, the decree of the Civil Court having become final in the year 2003 itself, it is binding on the respondent State since the respondents 1 and 2 herein who were the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Therefore, the Civil Court decree was prevailed over any orders that might have been passed by the respondents invoking their power under revenue standing orders. In such circumstances, the petitioner's request for grant of patta could not have been rejected on the ground that the records show that the land is registered as a Government land. 5. Therefore, the Civil Court decree was prevailed over any orders that might have been passed by the respondents invoking their power under revenue standing orders. In such circumstances, the petitioner's request for grant of patta could not have been rejected on the ground that the records show that the land is registered as a Government land. 5. In the light of above, the impugned order calls interference and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner taking into consideration the decision of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram in A.S.No.111 of 2000, dated 09.06.2003 and grant patta to the petitioner subject to the petitioner's complying with the other conditions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.