The Tahsildar vs S.Govindarajan

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9351 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2023

Madras High Court
The Tahsildar vs S.Govindarajan on 1 August, 2023
                                                                          W.A.No.1815 of 2023



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED:     01.08.2023

                                                        CORAM :

                           THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                         AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU


                                                W.A.No.1815 of 2023

                     The Tahsildar
                     Attur Taluk
                     Attur – 636 102
                     Salem District.                                      .. Appellant

                                                          Vs

                     S.Govindarajan                                       .. Respondent


                     Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
                     order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
                     W.P.No.30399 of 2015.


                                   For the Appellant       : Mr.P.Muthukumar
                                                             State Government Pleader

                                   For the Respondent      : Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar




                     __________
                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.A.No.1815 of 2023



                                                           JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.7.2021 in W.P.No.30399 of 2015.

3. The present respondent had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 28.7.2014 and sought directions to make entry in the revenue register in respect of the land belonging to the original writ petitioner to an extent of 6.03 Acres in Survey No.67, Thulukanur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District, as patta land.

4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:

“22. In the result, the following orders are passed in __________ Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1815 of 2023 this writ petition.

That the impugned order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the respondent shall borne in mind the decree of the trial Court as referred to above as well as the judgment and decree passed by this Court in S.A.No.724 of 1989 dated 04.01.2001 and accordingly take the needful action to issue patta in respect of the land in question to and in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, if there is no other rival claim is made, there can be no further impediment for the respondent to accept the plea of the petitioner and to do the needful. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. According to learned State Government Pleader for the appellant, the said land in Survey No.67 is a pond. Patta cannot be issued in respect of the pond. The said aspect has not been __________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1815 of 2023 considered by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment and decree of the Civil Court.

7. It appears that the present respondent had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in Survey No.67 to the extent of 5 Acres and 3 Cents. It was contended that there is a pond in it. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The State filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court. The plaintiff filed a second appeal, bearing S.A.No.724 of 1989, before this court. This court allowed the second appeal by setting aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had concluded that the suit property is the personal property of the plaintiff. The same has been continuously enjoyed by the plaintiff. The government's right, title and interest in the suit property does not subsist.

__________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1815 of 2023

8. In view of the judgment of the civil court, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15997 of 2023 is closed.

                                                          (S.V.G., CJ.)                (P.D.A., J.)
                                                                          01.08.2023
                     Index            :             Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation :             Yes/No
                     sasi




                     __________
                     Page 5 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1815 of 2023 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

(sasi) W.A.No.1815 of 2023 01.08.2023 __________ Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis