Madras High Court
Krishnappa vs The District Collector on 8 December, 2021
WP.No.15720 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.15720 of 2017
Krishnappa ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Krishnagiri District
3.The Sub Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District ... 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 relating to Pa.Mu.No.8791/2017/J2 dated 02.05.2017,
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta to the
petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of 74 cents in survey no.30/2,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District within the time to be
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyapparaja
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to
Pa.Mu.No.8791/2017/J2 dated 02.05.2017, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner in respect
of the land to an extent of 74 cents in survey no.30/2, Kodiyalam Village,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District within the time to be stipulated by this
Court.
2. The property comprised in survey No.30/2 to an extent of 74
cents is classified as 'Karadu Poramboke' in the revenue records adjoined
with the petitioner's land comprised in survey No.23/11, Kodiyalam Village,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner is in possession and
enjoyment of the same. The petitioner also filed suit in OS.No.129 of 2009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
as against the private parties on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur
for declaration and injunction and the same was decreed in his favour by the
judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for
patta and no order had been passed. Therefore, the petitioner approached
this Court in WP.No.35849 of 2016 for direction and this Court by order
dated 02.02.2017 directed the first respondent to consider the representation
and pass orders. While enquiry, the petitioner submitted all the documents
and stated that originally the property was purchased by his ancestors by the
registered sale deed dated 08.08.1895 registered vide document No.740 of
1895 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Hosur.
2.1 Under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, the petitioner's father approached the Settlement
Tahsildar and obtained patta in his favour on 26.05.1971. On perusal of the
order dated 26.05.1971, revealed that the subject property have been
conveyed through documents and it has been under cultivation and
enjoyment of the petitioner's father. Therefore, under Section 11 of the
Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
satisfied and in exercise of the powers delegated to the Settlement Tahsildar
under GO.No.403 (Rev) dated 15.02.1965, the Settlement Tahsildar hold
that the petitioner's father is eligible for ryotwari patta in respect of the
subject land. However, the said land has been reclassified as Karadu
Poramboke. However, the first respondent without considering the above
facts and dismissed the request of the petitioner for the reason that the
Village Administrative Officer of the Kodiyalam Village made statement
that the subject land stood as 'tharisu' in the village accounts. Further as per
the Inam Abolition Act 26 of 1969 and Minor Inam Abolition Act, 30 of
1969 Section 11(3) with Section 8(1) (i) as against the order passed by the
Assistant Settlement Officer within a period of three months they have to
file an appeal. However, the petitioner or his father did not approach the
authority within a period of three months. Therefore, rejected the claim
made by the petitioner.
3. Heard, Mr.V.Ayyapparaja, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
4. The first respondent also filed counter, which revealed that the
land comprised in survey No.30/2 admeasuring 2.46.5 hectares situated at
Kodialam Village has been classified as 'Karadu Poramboke' and it belongs
to the Government of Tamilnadu. The petitioner encroached some extent of
this land and is enjoying the same by payment of 'B' memo charges. It will
not confer any right to the petitioner for issuance of patta. Further revealed
that as per GO.Ms.No.714 CT & RE Department dated 29.06.1987, there is
no law to admit any claim under Estate Abolish Act for issuance of patta.
The petitioner after lapse of 50 years, is belatedly claiming over the said
land.
5. It is also curious to note that the counter never whisper about
the patta issued in favour of the petitioner's father by the Settlement
Tahsildar dated 26.05.1971. Therefore, on the request made by the
petitioner's father, his request was considered and he was granted patta by
the Settlement Tahsildar in respect of the subject property. If at all any
grievance over the same, the revenue authorities have to file an appeal as
contemplated under GO.Ms.No.714 CT & RE Department dated 29.06.1987
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
within a period of three months. Therefore, the petitioner or his father need
not to file any appeal since the petitioner's father was already granted patta
by the Settlement Tahsildar. However, under the UDR, the subject land was
wrongly classified as 'Karadu Poramboke' and as such the petitioner paid 'B'
memo charges. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of
the same for the past several decades.
6. Considering the above, the order impugned is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 is set aside and
the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to conduct fresh
enquiry after calling for the report from the Settlement Officer with regards
to the patta issued in favour of the petitioner's father dated 26.05.1971 and
after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass fresh orders to
reclassify the subject land as patta land on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. No order as to costs.
08.12.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15720 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Krishnagiri District
3.The Sub Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District
WP.No.15720 of 2017
08.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
