Madras High Court

Pitchaimuthu vs The District Revenue Officer on 4 August, 2021

                                                                                   WP.No.37635 of 2007

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 04.08.2021

                                                          CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                    WP.No.37635 of 2007

                     Pitchaimuthu                                         ...      Petitioner
                                                             Vs
                     1.The District Revenue Officer,
                       Tiruvarur District
                     2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       Tiruvarur
                     3.The Tashildar,
                       Kudavasal,
                       Tiruvarur District
                     4.Selvi                                              ...      Respondents


                     Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of
                     the first respondent in Ne.O.Me.Mu.Ma No.3 of 2007 dated 06.12.2007 and
                     quash the same and further direct the respondents to issue Natham Patta to
                     the petitioner for the property in S.No.148/7 to an extent of 4.43 hectare,
                     Manakal Village, Kudavasal Taluk.


                                   For Petitioner     :   Mr.V.Raghavachari




                     1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 WP.No.37635 of 2007

                                   For Respondents
                                      For R1 to 3    : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
                                                       Government Advocate

                                     For R4          : M/s.R.Meenal


                                                        ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified

mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Ne.O.Me.Mu.Ma

No.3 of 2007 dated 06.12.2007 and quash the same and further direct the

respondents to issue Natham Patta to the petitioner for the property in

S.No.148/7 to an extent of 4.43 hectare, Manakal Village, Kudavasal Taluk.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been in

possession and occupation of the property comprised in survey No.148/7

and 148/8 to an extent of 0.04.43 hectares and 0.00.50 hectares respectively

situated at Manakal Village, Kudavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District. It was

allotted in his favour by the registered partition deed vide document

No.1613 of 1944 and by way of settlement deed dated 17.08.1950 by the

registered document No.2132 of 1950. While being so, the fourth

respondent is an encroacher and sought for grant of patta. The said land is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

classified as natham poramboke. The said property was under usage of his

ancestors as cattle shed and storing hay and other connected articles. The

fourth respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property comprised

in survey no.148/1 which lies on the western side of the survey No.148/7

which is classified as street poramboke. However, she had managed to get

patta from the third respondent by order dated 30.06.2003 for the property

comprised in survey No.148/7 to an extent of 0.01.00 hectares out of

0.04.43 hectares. Though the petitioner objected, the third respondent

without considering the same, issued patta. Therefore, aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent as against the

issuance of patta in favour of the fourth respondent.

2.1 He further submitted that the second respondent conducted

field inspection and found that the fourth respondent is not in possession of

the property comprised in survey no.148/7 and found no house is there as

claimed by the fourth respondent. During the enquiry, the petitioner

produced partition deed and also settlement deed and proved his possession

and enjoyment of the suit property. After perusal of documents and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

report was submitted by the third respondent, the second respondent

cancalled the patta issued by the third respondent by order dated

08.07.2006. As against the said order, the fourth respondent filed revision

before the first respondent. The first respondent erroneously allowed the

appeal and also held that the petitioner in not in possession and occupation

of the subject property. Further held that the property is classified as natham

poramboke and it cannot be assigned to anybody. In support of his

contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following

judgments:

(i) Dharmarajan and others Vs. Valliammal and others

reported in AIR 2008 SC 850

(ii) Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs.

V.Swaminathan reported in 2004-3-LW 278

(iii) G.Hari Govinda Prasad and Ors. Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors reported in

2020 (5) ALD 295

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents 1 to 3 filed counter and submitted that the property comprised

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

in RS.No.148/7 and 148/8 has been classified as natham poramboke in the

revenue records. During the field inspection, found that the said land is not

in physical occupation of the petitioner as claimed by him. In fact, the

fourth respondent applied for issuance of patta to an extent of 0.01.0

hectares in RS.No.148/7. After due enquiry, the third respondent passed

order to issue patta in favour of the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner

claimed right over the said property under the partition deed and settlement

deed created in his favour. The land in dispute is being classified as natham

poramboke and belong to the Government. Therefore, by showing the

documents, which were created in his favour such as partition deed and

settlement deed never confer any title over the property in favour of the

petitioner herein. The petitioner or his ancestors neither enjoyed the

property nor utilised as cattle shed and hay storage as claimed by the

petitioner. The subject property is vacant site and fully grown with

kattukkaruvai shrubs.

3.1 He further submitted that if the petitioner occupied the portion

which is classified as grama natham, it can be considered for issuance of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

patta, that too for residential purpose. Whereas, admittedly the subject land

is classified as natham poramboke and it means that unoccupied portion. He

further submitted that as against the order passed in the revision filed by the

fourth respondent, the petitioner ought to have filed suit, since admittedly

there is dispute on facts in respect of his possession and enjoyment of the

subject property. Proviso to Section 14 of the Patta Passbook Act clearly

provides a suit to be filed when the order passed under Section 13 of the

Patta Passbook Act, as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry

made in any Patta Passbook under this act the petitioner has to institute a

suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right

for a declaration of his rights under Chapter IV of the Specific Relief Act,

1963.

4. The fourth respondent filed counter and stated that she has been

in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 0.01.0 hectares

comprised in survey no.148/7. After field inspection conducted by the third

respondent, she has been issued patta by order dated 30.06.2003. Except the

said land, the fourth respondent has no other property to reside. She further

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

submitted that admittedly the subject land is classified as natham

poramboke vested with the Government. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

claim under the partition deed as well as the settlement deed which were

created in his favour. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

5. Heard, Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents 1 to 3, and M/s.R.Meenal, the learned counsel for the fourth

respondent.

6. The subject land comprised in RS.No.148/7 to an extent of

0.04.43 hectares, and to an extent of 0.00.50 hectares comprised in survey

No.148/8 situated at Manakal Village, Vadivasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District

are classified as natham poramboke in the revenue records. The fourth

respondent is in occupation and enjoyment to the extent of 0.01.0 hectares

in survey No.148/7 and she sought for patta. The third respondent inspected

the suit property and granted patta in favour of the fourth respondent by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

order dated 30.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred

appeal before the second respondent as contemplated under Section 12 of

Patta Passbook Act. The second respondent cancelled the order passed by

the third respondent by order dated 08.07.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred revision before the first respondent as contemplated

under Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. The petitioner

claimed his right over the property on the strength of the partition deed and

the settlement deed executed in his favour. Admittedly, the property is

classified as natham poramboke and it is not a patta land. The third

respondent filed his report on his inspection found that neither the petitioner

nor his ancestors enjoyed the property or utilised the same as cattle shed and

hay storage as claimed by the petitioner. It is vacant site and is fully grown

with Kattukkaruvai shrubs. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Government Advocate when the property is classified as grama natham and

occupied portion of the same can be considered for issuance of patta for

residential purpose. Whereas when the property is classified as natham

poramboke is vested with the Government and it is considered unoccupied

by anybody.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

7. According to the petitioner, for the past several years, he is in

possession and enjoyment of the same. Even then, the petitioner except the

partition deed and the settlement deed he failed to prove his continuous

possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, it is a disputed

question of facts and it cannot be decided by the revenue authorities. It is

also to be noted that if aggrieved by the order passed under Section 13 of

the Patta Passbook Act, as per the proviso to Section 14, the petitioner has

to file suit. It is relevant to extract the proviso to Section 14 of Tamilnadu

Patta Passbook Act, 1983 hereunder:

14. Bar of suits.- No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:

Provided that if any person is aggrieved, as to any right of which, he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta passbook under this act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter IV of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the Patta Passbook shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.37635 of 2007

Accordingly, if the petitioner is aggrieved as to any right of which, he is in

possession, by an entry made in the Patta Passbook Act, he has to institute

suit as against the person denying or interested to deny his title.

8. Further, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand since the property involved in

those cases is classified as grama natham. That apart, the judgment reported

in the case of Dharmarajan and others Vs. Valliammal and others reported

in AIR 2008 SC 850 has arisen out of second appeal. As far as the judgment

in the case of Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs.

V.Swaminathan reported in 2004-3-LW 278 is concerned, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held that there is no dispute that the land under