Madras High Court
Arunachalam vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 20 December, 2021
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :20.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD).No. 14393 of 2018
Arunachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Settlement Officer,
Arupukkottai Division,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents
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 pertains to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in
K3/16461/2015, dated 13.07.2016 and the second respondent in
Ni.Mu.A2/29059/2016, dated 23.03.2018 and quash the same and
consequently, directing the fourth respondent to issue patta in favour of the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
petitioner in respect of the land which is situated in Sr.No.88/10, Kallurani
Village, Arupukottai Taluk to the extent of 0.38 cents.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus, with respect to an impugned order passed by the first
respondent/the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai,
dated 13.07.2016 and by the second respondent/the District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar, dated 23.03.2018 and to quash the same and direct the fourth
respondent/the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai Taluk in Virudhunagar District, to issue
patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land in S.No.88/10,
Kallurani Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, measuring an extent 0.38 cents.
2.It is the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support
of the Writ Petition that the petitioner had filed a petition before the District
Collector, Virudhunagar, seeking patta and at that time, he came to know that in
the year 1976, during the UDR Scheme, the classification of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
aforementioned has been changed from Ryot-Punjai to Government poramboke
- kuttai. It had also been so recorded in the village accounts. Then, the
petitioner had approached the District Collector to take steps to rectify the
error. The Village Administrative Officer conducted a spot inspection and
submitted a report, stating that there is no water body or kuttai available at any
point of time in S.No.88/10. It is also stated that the fourth respondent/the
Tahsildar, by report, dated 12.02.2015, had also stated that the land had been
classified as a patta land in the name of Backkiyasamy Nadar.
3.It is therefore, claimed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
reclassification of the land during the UDR Scheme, which had been conducted
without notice to the petitioner, should be re-examined and the land being a
patta land, the petitioner should be granted patta.
4.A perusal of the order of the first respondent to which my attention had
been drawn and which is, dated 13.07.2016, shows that the said official had
actually also examined the order of the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai. The order is
extracted below for better reference:
“4.The Tahsildar, Aruppukkotai in his
inspection report dated;20.08.2015, has stated that as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
per the A-Register prepared during the Settlement, the
land in S.No.88/10, Kallurani Village, stood registered
as Ryot-punjai, extent 0.38 cents under patta No.939
in the name of Thiru S.Backkiyasamy Nadar. As per
the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Kovilpatti in reference No.B1/10782/1975, dated;
12.07.1976 (Taluk file No.A/13268/1976; dated;
15.07.1976), the classification of the above said land
has been changed from Ryot-punjai to Government
poranmboke – kuttai and the same has been registered
in the village accounts. Further, based on this
registry, the above said land stands registered as
Government poramboke – kuttai during the UDR
Scheme also. At the time of field inspection, on the
western side of the survey field No.88/10, there is a
small pit as drawn in the FMB. During enquiry, it has
been informed that there was a kuttai and it appears
that a part of the soil eroded. On the eastern side of
the place drawn as kuttai, the land is kept as even-
surface, tharisu and with the dense growth of seemai
karuvel trees.
As per the true copy of the rough chitta
prepared during the settlement, the land under S.No.
88/10, paimash No.279 and 279/1, Ryot-punjai, extent
0.96 and 0.84 cents respectively stands registered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
under patta No.939 in the name of Thiru Backkiya
Nadar, S/o.Subbaiah Nadar. Subsequently, an entry
has been made in the settlement register that an extent
of 0.38 cents in S.No.88/10 has been classified as
Government pond poramboke as per the proceedings
of the Assistant Settlement Officer, No.10782/1975
under Act 49/1974.
As per the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974 (No.
49/1974), any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any
private tank or oorani under the Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948,
prior to the date of the publication of the above said
Amendment Act, shall stand cancelled and for the
purpose of compensation under this Act, the private
tank or oorani shall be deemed to be the land in
respect of which neirther the landholder nor any other
person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”
5.It had been very clearly stated, as seen from the above that the officer
had examined the report of the Tahsildar, dated 20.08.2015, wherein it had been
stated that the land is Ryot-Punjai and it stands in the name of Backkiyasamy
Nadar. However, it has also been stated that even much earlier during the UDR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
Scheme, the land had been actually registered as Government poramboke –
kuttai. It had been finally observed that the petitioner herein, had not
questioned that particular entry made during the UDR Scheme.
6.The claim of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the same and
therefore that entry cannot be taken into consideration. If the petitioner seeks
to enjoy the land, he must be aware of the various classifications of the said
land. The UDR Scheme was done much prior to the entry to the inspection of
the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai and it had been very clearly stated that the land in
question is a Government poramboke – kuttai. The first respondent, by a very
considered order, had finally stated as follows:
'The petitioner, if aggrieved to the orders of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti, should have filed
an appeal before the Estate Abolition Tribunal for
remedy. Further, as per the provisions contained in
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948) and
as per G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and
Charitable Endowment Department, dated 29.06.1987,
wherein the Government had prescribed the last date to
apply for ryotwari patta under the above said Act as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
20.08.1987. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in it's
judgment in W.A.No.96/2015, dated 09.02.2016, has
upheld the above said Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.
714, Commercial Taxes & Charitable Endowment
Department, dated 29.06.1987, which prescribes the last
date for applying patta under the above said Act as
20.08.1987. As neither Thiru.N.Arunachalam or his
vendor had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal
within the stipulated period and had failed to apply for
ryotwari patta prior to 20.08.1987 to the appropriate
authority, Thiru.N.Arunachalam has now no loco-standi
to claim patta for the above said land. Further, it not
correct to claim that the change of classification of the
subject land has been made during UDR Scheme as it
has been done by in 1976 itself. Therefore, the request
of the petitioner viz., Thiru.N.Arunachalam, seeking
patta for the land in S.No.88/10, Kallurani Village,
extent 0.38 cents after changing the classification of the
land from Government poramboke – kuttai into ryotwari,
is not accepted and accordingly rejected as devoid of
merits.'
7.The second respondent/The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar,
had also passed a consequential order on 23.03.2018. He had again affirmed,
after examining the Government records that the lands in S.No.88/10,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
measuring an extent 0.38 cents, had been classified only as Government
poramboke – kuttai land and thereafter, patta cannot be granted to the petitioner
herein.
8.The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in the year 2015, the
patta was in the name of the petitioner and thereafter, by the order of the first
respondent, the land was classified as Government poramboke – Kuttai. The
petitioner had not questioned the order before the Tribunal and had also not
questioned the UDR Scheme classifying the land of the petitioner as
Government poramboke – kuttai.
10.In view of the fact, I am afraid, I cannot grant the relief sought. This
Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
20.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
lr
To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Settlement Officer,
Arupukkottai Division,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14393 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
lr
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
W.P(MD).No.14393 of 2018
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
