Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 3459 (MAD)

K. Veeraiah v. District Collector, Dindigul

2021-12-08

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned tender cum public auction notification published by the third respondent through Notice Pasali 1431 (1st call) in respect of Shop Serial No.2, namely, Coconut and Banana Shop situated at Arulmighu Brahma Pureshwarar Thirukovil, Thiruppattur, Trichy District and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the time period based on the petitioner's representation, dated 22.10.2021.) 1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, with respect to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.20585/2020/o1, dated 20.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue patta to the petitioner for the land/property in S.No.29/1, measuring 4 acres along with 2 C patta for 45 tamarind trees in Sanarpatti Village, Dindigul. The petitioner had also given a representation, dated 07.12.2020. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid property, in S.No.29/1, Sanarpatti Village, Dindigul East Taluk is classified as Tamarai kulam in the revenue records. It is however, stated that the land is not Tamarai kulam, but, there are 45 numbers of tamarind trees. It had been stated that 2 C patta was granted to the father and mother of the petitioner even before thirty years. It is claimed that they had been paying kist for the tree patta and also enjoyed the land/property by paying kist in B Memo. It had been stated that the land measures 4 acres and is classified as poramboke land. It had been stated that after the parents, the petitioner and his sister had been paying kist for B Memo, however, the revenue authorities have refused to receive it. 3. It had been further stated that the nearby land had been sub-divided and classified as Tamarai kulam. It had been stated that the land claimed by the petitioner is not Kulam but, there is a road with street lights. The petitioner gave a representation on 20.12.2017. It had been claimed that the land had been wrongly classified as Tamarai kulam. It had been claimed that the land should be reclassified as Government Natham and patta granted to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner gave a representation on 20.12.2017. It had been claimed that the land had been wrongly classified as Tamarai kulam. It had been claimed that the land should be reclassified as Government Natham and patta granted to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner earlier filed W.P(MD)No.578 of 2018, seeking a direction to reclassify the land as Natham and issue patta. The Writ Petition was disposed on 27.08.2020, directing the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul to consider the representation, dated 20.12.2017. 5. It had been stated that the second respondent however, passed the impugned order on 20.11.2020. In the impugned order, the second respondent had stated that the land cannot be reclassified as Natham land and had reiterated that the lands have been encroached by the petitioner and that they are classified as Tamarai kulam in the revenue records. Questioning that particular order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 6. Heard Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. The claim of the petitioner to occupy the lands in S.No.29/1, measuring 4 acres in Sanarpatti village, Dindigul East Taluk, is on the basis of a 2 C patta granted to the parents of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had also stated in the affidavit that the land has however, classified as Tamarai kulam in the revenue records. The petitioner claimed that they have a right to continue to occupy the land and in this connection had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.578 of 2018, seeking to consider a representation given by the petitioner to reclassify the land as Natham poramboke and thereafter, grant patta to the petitioner herein. 8. Perusal of the impugned order, very clearly shows that the land in S.No. 29/1, totally measures 11.63.0 hectares and had been classified during UDR settlement as Tamarai kulam and in the 'A' Register as Kulam, Kanmai. It had also been stated that in the FMB, it had been shown only as Tamarai kulam and as water body. The petitioner claims right owing to the fact that 2 C patta had been granted to the parents of the petitioner. 9. It must be stated that 2 C patta is a reference to limited rights granted under Revenue Standing Order 18(2)(C). Under such permission the grantee does not have any right over the trees and they are limited only with respect to the usufructs alone. 9. It must be stated that 2 C patta is a reference to limited rights granted under Revenue Standing Order 18(2)(C). Under such permission the grantee does not have any right over the trees and they are limited only with respect to the usufructs alone. Ownership of the land and trees continued to be with the Government. Even when the trees are wind-fallen, the grantee has no rights over the fallen trees. The grant of tree tag system is given normally to pattadhars, who possessed cultivable lands near to the poramboke lands for safe guarding the trees only. 10. It is thus seen that the parents of the petitioner had been granted limited rights under 2 C patta. They were given it on trust with right only over the usufructs. They can pluck the tamarind. They cannot own the tamarind trees. They cannot seek ownership of the land. They cannot seek possessory rights of the lands. 11. Moreover, it is admitted even by the petitioner that under the revenue records the land is classified as Tamarai kulam, Kanmai, Kulam and as water body. Such lands can never be reclassified as Natham poramboke. The respondents can never grant patta over a water body to anybody and the petitioner has no right to seek patta for such land classified as water body. 12. In 2015 (5) Law Weekly 597, T.K.Shanmugam, CPI(M) North Chennai District Committee Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Deparment of Revenue and others, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court had very specifically held that “public trust doctrine requires natural resources such as lakes, ponds are held by State as a 'trustee' of the public”. 13. It had been further held that encroachers are trespassers into the Government property and the theory of adverse possession would not be attracted. It had also been stated that encroachments over water bodies and tanks must be removed. It had also been held that the Court is not inclined to accept that because a water body has been put to disuse, it would be a ground to regularize encroachments. In effect, the Hon'ble Full Bench had directed that any encroachment over lands classified as Kanmai, water body, pond, should necessarily be removed. 14. This would also indicate that the said lands can never be classified as Natham land and patta issued to anybody. In effect, the Hon'ble Full Bench had directed that any encroachment over lands classified as Kanmai, water body, pond, should necessarily be removed. 14. This would also indicate that the said lands can never be classified as Natham land and patta issued to anybody. The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is seen from the impugned order that the S.No.29/1, is classified in all the revenue records as Tamarai kulam, Kanmai. The petitioner can never enjoy the rights over the land nor can seek any rights over the land. 15. The Writ Petition is misconceived. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions is also closed.