Madras High Court
S.Jeyabalan vs The Principal Secretary And ... on 14 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5699 & 5700 of 2021
S.Jeyabalan ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration (FAC),
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Devakottai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.4048 of 2021 dated
05.03.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the respondents.
2.The appellant is the writ petitioner, who filed W.P.(MD)No.
4048 of 2021 dated 05.03.2021, challenging the order passed by
the first respondent dated 22.01.2021, rejecting the petitioner's
application for grant of assignment in respect of the lands in
Survey No.326/6, Chittativayal Village, Iruvinivayal Group,
Devakottai Taluk, measuring an extent of 0.16.5 Ares. The
classification of the land is Sarkar Poramboke Natham. The first
respondent in the order impugned in the writ petition has rejected
the claim primarily on the ground that the appellant is not in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
possession of the land and he has not established that he is in
possession and therefore, there is no right for assignment of the
land to the appellant.
3.The case had a chequered history. The litigation was first
started by the appellant's father who had filed various writ
petitions before this Court and an order came to be passed by the
District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai dated 25.02.2009, refusing to
grant patta in respect of the very same land. This order was put to
challenge in W.P.(MD)No.2808 of 2009 and the writ petition was
dismissed by order dated 05.04.2013, directing the appellant to file
a revision petition before the first respondent herein. Accordingly,
the revision petition was filed which was dismissed by order dated
03.10.2013. The first respondent held that during Natham
Settlement Scheme, patta was issued to persons who were enjoying
the lands in the Natham by way of construction of houses or huts
and that the District Revenue Officer rightly rejected the claim of
the appellant since enjoyment has not been proved by the
appellant. The appellant placed much reliance on the extract of the
survey field register. This aspect was considered by the first
respondent and it was observed that the said document cannot
finally establish the possession of the land in question by the
appellant or his father.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
4.The order passed by the first respondent dated 03.10.2003
was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.18480 of 2013. The said writ
petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the appellant to
approach the first respondent herein with a request for assignment
of the said land. Accordingly, a petition was filed before the first
respondent on 11.07.2017. This was rejected by order dated
22.01.2021. Since by then, the appellant's father who was the
petitioner in the earlier round of litigations passed away on
21.10.2020 and thereafter, the appellant challenged the order
dated 22.01.2021, by filing W.P.(MD)No.4048 of 2021. This has
been dismissed by the impugned order.
5.We are fully in agreement with the ultimate conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Bench that the petitioner has to
establish his possession of the land in question before the learned
Civil Court as there are various factual controversies. However, we
wish to add that the earlier round of litigation and the proceedings
before the authorities at the instance of the appellant was for grant
of patta. His claim for grant of patta came to an end after the
order was passed in W.P.(MD)No.18480 of 2013 dated 22.03.2017.
It is in the said order, liberty was granted to the appellant to
approach the first respondent seeking assignment of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
subject to payment of land value and if such application is filed, it
was directed to be considered independently without being
influenced by any of the observations made in any of the
proceedings including the order dated 22.03.2017, in the said writ
petition. The Court also protected the possession of the appellant
till the application for assignment is considered. This application
has been rejected.
6.The core issue is that the appellant has to prove the
possession of the land, not only his possession, but also possession
by his father as his claim for grant of patta dates back to the year
2005. Unless and until this fact is proved in the manner known to
law, the appellant has no vested right to claim for assignment of the
land which is classified as Sarkar Poramboke Natham. This aspect
can be done only before the Civil Court and cannot be adjudicated
before the Writ Court based on affidavit and documents.
Therefore, the appellant, to establish his possession of the land
with his family, has to necessarily approach the Civil Court. It goes
without saying that in the relief that the appellant may seek before
the Civil Court, it will be well open to the appellant to question the
correctness of the order passed by the first respondent dated
22.01.2021. This liberty is granted because neither the learned
Writ Court nor ourselves have gone into the merits of the matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
7.For the above reasons, while dismissing the appeal filed by
the appellant and confirming the order passed by the learned
Single Bench, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the
competent Civil Court having jurisdiction for appropriate relief. If
the appellant avails such a remedy on or before 31.08.2021, the
status quo with regard to the property in question prevailing as on
dated ie., 14.07.2021 shall be preserved. On the other hand, if the
appellant does not do so, then the benefit of this protection will not
inure to the appellant and it will be open to the respondents to
proceed further in accordance with law. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
14.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
To
1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration (FAC),
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Devakottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1361 of 2021
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
