Madras High Court
S.Govindarajan vs Tahsildar on 28 July, 2021
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
S.Govindarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Tahsildar,
Attur Taluk,
Attur - 636 102,
Salem District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in
respect of proceedings of the Respondent Na.Ka.3496/2009 A.5 dated
28.07.2014 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the
Respondent herein to make an entry in the Revenue Registry in respect of
the lands belonging to the petitioner to the extent of 6.03 acres in S.No.67,
Thulukanur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District, as Patta lands as per the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.148 of 1986 dated 25.02.1987 by
the District Munsif Court, Attur, which was confirmed by this Court on
04.01.2001 in S.A.No.724 of 1989.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Counsel
1/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus
to call for the records in respect of proceedings of the Respondent
Na.Ka.3496/2009 A.5 dated 28.07.2014 and quash the same with a
consequential direction to the respondent herein to make an entry in the
Revenue Registry in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner to the
extent of 6.03 acres in S.No.67, Thulukanur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem
District, as Patta lands as per the Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.148 of 1986 dated 25.02.1987 by the District Munsif Court, Attur,
which was confirmed by this Court on 04.01.2001 in S.A.No.724 of 1989.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the owner of the
agricultural land to the extent of 6.03 acres in S.No.67, Thulukanur Village,
Attur Taluk, Salem District, which according to the petitioner are patta
lands.
3. According to the petitioner, the property in question was originally
belongs to one Ramu Pillai, who converted 2/3rd of the lands into a private
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
kuttai (Tank) to store rain water for the purpose of irrigating other lands.
This conversion of agricultural lands into a private kuttai was recognised as
early as in the year 1903 by the then District Collector, Salem District and
orders were passed for waiver of payment of kist, since the lands were no
longer used for cultivation. However, by passage of time, the kuttai dried up
and these lands were again used for agricultural operations.
4. While so, the petitioner had purchased the above lands by way of
registered sale deed dated 05.02.1968 from one Anantha Padmanabhan, son
of Ramu Pillai. Pursuant to which, when the petitioner approached for
mutuation in the land revenue records, the same seems to have been refused
for the reason that the said land has been classified as 'poramboke lands' in
the revenue records.
5. Only at this juncture, the petitioner filed civil suit in O.S.No.148 of
1986 before the Munsif Court, Attur against the Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by the District Collector, Salem, Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur and the Tahsildar, Attur, where the Civil Court, after contest, passed a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
judgment and decree dated 25.02.1987 to and in favour of the petitioner,
who was the plaintiff in the said suit.
6. Subsequently, as against the said judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the respondents preferred first appeal in A.S.No.66 of 1989 before
the II Additional District Judge, Salem, who passed a judgment and decree
on 28.02.1989 reversing the judgment of the trial Court.
7. Felt aggrieved over the said order passed by the first Appellate
Court, the petitioner preferred second appeal in S.A.No.724 of 1989 before
this Court and the said second appeal, after having elaborate discussion, was
allowed by the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2001 where the first
Appellate Court judgment and decree was set aside, thereby the trial Court’s
judgment and decree was restored.
8. Thereby, the property in question has been declared to be the
private property of the petitioner wherein the mandatory injunction had been
given against the defendants therein who are the respondents herein from
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
making reclassification of the land and to issue patta in favour of the
petitioner.
9. It is to be noted that, as against the said judgment and decree
passed by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal, no further appeal seems
to have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, we can
safely conclude that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on
25.02.1987 has become final by the judgment and decree passed by this
Court in the said second appeal dated 04.01.2001.
10. After getting the Civil Court’s decree, when the petitioner had
approached the respondent Tahsilar to mutate the revenue records and to
issue patta in respect of the said land to and in favour of the petitioner, the
same had been rejected by the respondent through the impugned order dated
28.07.2014, whereby the respondent has stated that, the land in question for
which patta is sought for by the petitioner were classified as "Kuttai" i.e.,
"Water Body", the same cannot be converted or given patta to and in favour
of the petitioner. Therefore, by citing the said reason the plea of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
petitioner was rejected through the impugned order. Aggrieved over the said
impugned order of the respondent dated 28.07.2014, the petitioner has
chosen to file the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
11. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, who has taken this Court to the Civil Court decree, as referred
to above, which has been confirmed by the judgment and decree of this
Court in the aforesaid second appeal by order dated 04.01.2001. He would
also submit that, when there has been a decree of declaration as well as
injunction had been granted in this regard and the said declaration
injunction decree having been confirmed by this Court in the second appeal
as referred to above, by order dated 04.01.2001, as against which,
admittedly since there has been no further appeal, the said judgment and
decree passed by this Court has become final. Therefore, as against the Civil
Court judgment and decree, no decision can be taken by the revenue
authorities. Since the settled proposition that, once the Civil Court has given
the conclusive finding and judgment and decree in respect of the ownership
or title of the property concerned and the same having been confirmed in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
second appeal being the highest forum ie., this Court, the learned Senior
Counsel would contend that, no further reason can be stated as has been
stated in the impugned order by the respondent. Therefore, on that reason
alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the learned
Senior Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the said order and
remit the matter back to the respondent with a direction to issue patta in
respect of the land in question to and in favour of the petitioner.
12. Per contra, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Counsel
appearing for the respondent, on instruction, would submit that, even though
the petitioner is having the declaration with the judgment and decree having
been confirmed by this Court, since the land in question had been
categorised as “Kuttai” i.e., "Water Body", the general perception is that, no
such water body can be given patta under any situation and in this regard,
since there has been number of judicial orders have been passed time and
again by this Court on various circumstances, the said orders having been
taken as a guideline by the officer concerned, i.e., the respondent herein,
who, considering the said aspect, had decided to reject the plea of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
petitioner to issue patta. According to the respondent, the land since has
been classified as a Water Body in such kind of lands, private patta cannot
be expected by the petitioner and therefore, the same has been rejected by
the respondents, hence, the learned counsel seeks to sustain the impugned
order.
13. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
14. The property in question is at S.No.67 to the extent of 2.44.0
hectare.
15. The said property was purchased by the petitioner, as narrated
above, from the erstwhile owner, who, during his period, seems to have
made a private tank i.e., Kuttai to store the rain water for the purpose of
irrigation and this seems to have been approved by the then revenue
authorities as early as in the year 1903 itself. Only in that strength, when the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
petitioner, who subsequently purchased the property from the original
owner, had approached the revenue authorities, it seems that, the request of
the petitioner had been turned down, therefore, it directed the petitioner to
approach the Civil Court by filing a civil suit, as referred to above, where the
judgment and decree was passed on 25.02987 with the following effect:
"1/jhth brhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd
tpsk;g[jy; bra;Jk;.
2/jhth brhj;jpy; thjpf;Fs;s RthjPdk; kw;Wk;
mDgtj;jpy; gpujpthjp vf;fhyj;jpy; vt;tpj;jpYk;
jilnah. ,ila{nuh bra;af;TlhJ vd;Wk; jhth
brhj;jij bghWj;J tUtha;j;Jiw Mtz';fspd;
vt;tpj tpy;y';fKk; Vw;gLj;jf;TlhJ vd;Wk; jhth
brhj;jpd; Classification I khw;wf;TlhJ vd epue;ju
; l;lis cj;jput[ gpw;g;gpj;Jk;:
Vt[ff
3/mtuth;fSf;F Vw;gl;l bryt[j; bjhifapid
mtuth; fns Vw;f ntz;oaJ vd
jPh;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ/"
16. As against the said decree though successfully first appeal was
filed by the respondent, the said order passed by the first Appellate Court in
A.S.No.66 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem was
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
appealed to this Court in Second Appeal No.724 of 1989 by the petitioner
where an exhaustive order has been passed by the learned Judge on
04.01.2001. After having considered all the points raised on behalf of the
respondent herein, who are the respondent in that second appeal, Court had
given answer and ultimately concluded that the petitioner is entitled for the
judgment as has been decreed by the trial Court and accordingly by the
following order, the Civil Court decree has been restored by setting aside the
first Appellate Court decree.
"15.Though the lower appellate Court has elaborately
discussed the issue, while reversing the judgment of the trial
Court, the lower Appellate Court has not even explained as to
how the trial Court is wrong in accepting the case of the
plaintiff. Since the lower appellate Court has given findings
contrary to the documents and the averments in the written
statement filed by the defendants, I am inclined to set aside
the judgment of the lower appellate Court.
16.For all the reasons stated above, the judgment and
decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside, and the
judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored.
Consequently, this Second Appeal is allowed. No costs.
C.M.P.No.5988/89 is also dismissed."
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
17. As against the said decree of the trial Court having been
confirmed by the orders of this Court in that second appeal, as referred to
above, no further appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the said judgment and decree has
become final.
18. It is the settled proposition of law that, whatever the orders passed
by the revenue authorities is subject to the decision to be made in this regard
by the competent Civil Court, in this context, from the trial Court till this
Court, even though in between the first Appellate Court reversed the decree,
it has been confirmed the title of the petitioner over the property in question.
Once a declaratory decree was issued confirming the title of the property and
consequent injunction also was issued and the said judgment and decree has
become final, as against which, the revenue authorities like the respondent
herein cannot take a decision to state that, generally there has been a
perception that, no patta can be issued on the land which are classified as
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
"Water Body".
19. However, in this case, it is to be noted that, though a part of the
land was a Tank originally made as a private tank for the purpose of
irrigation, after sometime, it has dried up and even though it has dried up
and made as an agricultural land, continuously agricultural activities had
been taken place, it seems that, the nomenclature given to the land
concerned has not been changed or not been reclassified.
20. However, that mistake cannot be the reason for the respondent to
refuse the lawful claim of the petitioner to issue patta in respect of the
property in question, for which, the petitioner has got a declaratory decree
from the trial Court as confirmed by this Court.
21. When that being so, the reason stated in the impugned order by
the respondent to refuse to accept the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in
the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
liable to be interfered with.
22. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition.
That the impugned order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the
respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to
the respondent for reconsideration. While reconsidering the
same, the respondent shall borne in mind the decree of the trial
Court as referred to above as well as the judgment and decree
passed by this Court in S.A.No.724 of 1989 dated 04.01.2001
and accordingly take the needful action to issue patta in respect
of the land in question to and in favour of the petitioner. In this
regard, if there is no other rival claim is made, there can be no
further impediment for the respondent to accept the plea of the
petitioner and to do the needful. The needful as indicated above
shall be undertaken by the respondent within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23.With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
28.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
Sgl
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
To
Tahsildar,
Attur Taluk,
Attur - 636 102,
Salem District.
W.P.No.30399 of 2015
28.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
