Madras High Court
K.Pandurangan vs The Union Territory Of Puducherry on 25 August, 2021
WP.No.13337 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.13337 of 2011 and
MP.No.1 of 2011
K.Pandurangan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union Territory of Puducherry,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry
2.The Secretary (Revenue),
Revenue Department,
Saram, Puducherry
3.The District Collector,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry
4.The Deputy Collector(Revenue) (South),
Revenue Department,
Saram, Puducherry
5.The Revenue Officer,
Puducherry ... 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 third respondent in his proceedings No.6562/Rev/B2/2011 dated
11.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the property in Resurvey No.213/1
extending over 0.61.00 in the total extent of 63 ares at Embalam Village of
Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran
For Respondents : M/s.G.Djearany,
Government Advocate(Puducherry)
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings
No.6562/Rev/B2/2011 dated 11.03.2011 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner
for the property in Resurvey No.213/1 extending over 0.61.00 in the total
extent of 63 ares at Embalam Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he occupied Government
poramboke land comprised in re-survey No.213/1 admeasuring to an extent
of 0.61.00 hectares out of total extent of 63 ares situated at Embalam Village
of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry. He is an ex-serviceman and he is
cultivating the said land from the year 1988. However, his occupation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
cultivation were objected by the panchayat authorities and as such he
approached revenue authorities for assignment of the said land in his favour.
He also made representation on 27.06.2004 for assignment of the land and
issuance of patta in his favour. The fourth respondent by the communication
dated 05.07.2010 addressed to the third respondent and requested to take
necessary action. Thereafter, the Director, Department of Sainik Welfare,
Puducherry by the letter dated 14.12.2004 addressed to the second
respondent and the third respondent recommended for issuance of grant of
assignment in his favour. Thereafter, the third respondent by the
communication dated 01.09.2008 to the second respondent recommended
for assignment of the land in his favour.
2.1 While being so, the petitioner also filed suit in OS.No.1060 of
2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry for declaration
and permanent injunction as against the respondents. When the same was
pending, the petitioner also filed writ petition before this Court in
WP.No.23600 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 22.10.2010 directed the
authorities concerned to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
within a period of twelve weeks and observed that till the disposal of the
said representation, the respondents are restrained from disturbing the
petitioner's possession of the subject property. However, the request of the
petitioner was not considered and dismissed by the third respondent.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Puducherry)
appearing for the respondents submitted that the 3rd respondent in his order
dated 11.03.2011 has specifically stated that the provision of Rule 31 of
Land Grant Rules, 1975 relating to assignment of Poramboke and reserved
land stipulates that the grant of any land registered as Poromboke or entered
in the accounts as reserved or of any land specified in the rules of chapter II
is prima facie objectionable and application for grant should be summarily
rejected. The order further states that as presently the Government lands are
not assigned to any Ex-serviceman for cultivation purpose by the
Government, lands are not assigned to availability of Government lands for
public purposes like construction of office, buildings, community hall etc.,
the request for assignment can't be considered. The order also states that the
Government Department like Director of Survey and Land Records, Adi-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
Dravidar Welfare Department are seeking suitable land for assignment of
"patta" for people and resort to allotment of the Government land under
Land Acquisition Act, in view of the non-availability of suitable lands. The
petitioner has suppressed all the above facts and has come to this court for
relief with unclean hand. Admittedly the suit property is a Government land
and the petitioner is in occupation of the same by paying encroachment tax
by way of assessment. As provided in the Pondicherry Land Encroachment
Act, 1970, the payment of assessment shall not confer any right of
occupancy to the petitioner. The Government is always free to evict such
unauthorized occupation. Further, as per the provision of the Pondicherry
Land Encroachment Act, 1970, the person unauthorizedly occupying the
Government land is not exempted from being proceeded against, under any
other law for the time being in force. Therefore the Government is always
within its rights to proceed against him under the Public Premises (Eviction
of unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. The petitioner having admitted his
unauthorized occupation of the subject property and also in view of the
order passed by the 3rd respondent on the representation of the petitioner
for assignment of suit property has no locus standi to claim possessory title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
over the property. The petitioner also possesses sufficient land for his
livelihood and is also having pucca built R.C.C. building and he is also
owner of the petty shop.
3.1 She further submitted that the learned Principal District
Munsif at Puducherry was pleased to decree the suit in O.S.No.1060 of
2010 on 05.12.2013, wherein the court passed order and decree that the suit
is partly decreed and the plaintiff is declared as perfected his title to the suit
property by way of adverse possession. As aggrieved by the Judgment and
Decree passed by the trial court, the 4th defendant has filed an appeal in
A.No.1 of 2016 before the learned Principal Subordinate Court at
Puducherry. The Appellate court was pleased to allow the appeal and
dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.1060 of 2010 on
12.03.2019, which had become final.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and occupied the land
which is classified as Government poramboke to an extent of 63 ares
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
situated at remote village i.e. Embalam Village, Bahoor Sub Taluk,
Pondicherry for the past thirty years. In fact, all the authorities concerned
recommended to assign the said land in favour of the petitioner on payment
of market value. The third respondent without considering the same and
simply rejected the request of the petitioner for the reason that the
provisions under Rule 31 of Land Grant Rules, 1975 relating to assignment
of poramboke and reserved land stipulates that the grant of any land
registered as poramboke and entered in the accounts as reserved or of any
land specified under the Rules of Chapter III is prima facie objectionable
and application for grant should be summarily rejected. Whereas, the
petitioner claims under Rule 4 to 12 of Land Grant Rules, 1975. Rule 9 sub-
clause(2) clearly provides for assignment of land for the ex-serviceman.
Admittedly, the petitioner is cultivating the land for the past several years on
payment of tax. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to assignment of patta
under the ex-serviceman quota.
5. Heard, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and M/s.G.Djearany, Government Advocate (Puducherry)
appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
6. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and he occupied the land
comprised in Resurvey No.213/1 in the total extent of 63 ares at Embalam
Village of Bahoor Sub Taluk, Pondicherry. Therefore, he sought for
assignment of land in his favour and submitted his representation. As
directed by this Court in WP.No.23600 of 2010 by order dated 22.10.2010,
the third respondent passed order on the representation of the petitioner and
thereby rejected the request for assignment of land in favour of the
petitioner.
7. On perusal of Land Grant Rules, 1975, Rule 31 says that the
assignment of poramboke and reserved land stipulates that the grant of any
land registered as poramboke or entered in the accounts as reserved or of
any land specified in the Rules of Chapter III is prima facie objectionable
and application for grant should be summarily rejected. Whereas the learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is coming under Rule 9 (2) of
the Land Grant Rules, 1975 and the Rule provides assignment of land in
favour of ex-serviceman. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate, the subject land is classified as 'Arasu Vaikkal Poramboke. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
means it is a water channel. Therefore, the third respondent applied Rule 31
and rightly passed the order. Though the petitioner is an ex-serviceman, his
entitlement for assignment of land has rightly been rejected by the third
respondent since the land in possession of the petitioner is classified as
'Arasu Vaikkal Poramboke'. The counter also revealed that the Government
lands are not assigned to any ex-serviceman for cultivation purpose by the
Government in view of non availability of Government lands for public
purposes like constructions of office buildings, community hall, etc and as
such the request for assignment cannot be considered. That apart, there was
already dire need of land for Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department with regards
to assignment of free house site patta for the poor people.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner possesses sufficient land and he has
constructed terraced house and is residing there. In fact, the petitioner
encroached the subject property which is situated adjacent to his property
and the petitioner was directed to pay penalty by way of encroachment tax
under the Pondicherry Land Encroachment Act, 1970. Accordingly, the
petitioner also paid encroachment tax. Therefore, the tax receipts produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
by the petitioner are not the property tax. That apart, admittedly the land is
a vaikkal poramboke and it cannot be assigned for any purpose. In this
regard, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment in the
case of K.Arumugam Vs. Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu reported in
(2018) 5 CTC 703, and the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.1132 of
2011 dated 28.01.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is
held that long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in
making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as
a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal
possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases
relating to landless labourers, members of scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. Also held that no one can claim any right or title or interest over the
water bodies against the Government. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for any assignment for the land which he encroached, classified as
'Government vaikkal poramboke'. Therefore, the third respondent rightly
rejected the claim of the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the third respondent. As such, this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
25.08.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.13337 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
1.The Secretary,
Union Territory of Puducherry,
Department of Revenue,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry
2.The Secretary (Revenue),
Revenue Department,
Saram, Puducherry
3.The District Collector,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry
4.The Deputy Collector(Revenue) (South),
Revenue Department,
Saram, Puducherry
5.The Revenue Officer,
Puducherry
WP.No.13337 of 2011
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
