Madras High Court
Vanniyakula Kshatriyar Dharma ... vs The District Collector on 24 June, 2021
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
Vanniyakula Kshatriyar Dharma Sathira Sangam,
Represented by its President,
Shri.V.Subramaiyam,
Aged about 75 years,
Registration No.16/2006, Having registered
office functioning at, No.111/42,
M.P.S.Salai, Tiruttani Town and Taluk,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209. ... Petitioner
(Petitioner substituted vide order dated
18.06.2021 made in W.M.P. No. 11417
of 2021in W.P. No. 18686 of 2018 by
RSKJ.)
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Tiruttani Division,
Chennai - Tiruppati Road,
Tiruttani,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
3. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tiruttani Taluk,
Chennai - Tiruppati Road,
Tiruttani,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
4. The Revenue Inspector,
Tiruttani Town,
Tiruttani Taluk,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
5. The Village Administrative Officer,
Madam Village, Tiruttani Town and Taluk,
Tiruttani,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta in favour of petitioner Sangam in their
property measuring about to an extent of 1 acre 84.5 cents in S.No.338/3
were situated at Arakkonam Road, Tiruttani Town, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur
District as per the petitioner Sangam representation dated 26.06.2018.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Counsel for Government
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing
the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta in favour of the petitioner Sangam in
respect of the property measuring to an extent of 1 acre 84.5 cents in
S.No.338/3 situated at Arakkonam Road, Tiruttani Town, Tiruttani,
Tiruvallur District as per the petitioner Sangam representation dated
26.06.2018.
2. The petitioner claimed to be a Society, i.e., Sangam called
"Vanniyakula Kshatriyar Dharma Sathira Sangam", which according to
them was established on 14.01.2006 for the welfare of Vanniyakula
Kshatriya Community people.
3. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that, in 18th
century, i.e., on 01.07.1729, the King of Karvatti Town by way of
"Thamara Pathiram" claimed to have given a tank called "Etti Kulam".
The corresponding present survey number of the same, according to the
petitioner, is S.No.338/3 situated at Arakkonam Road, Tiruttani Town,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District to the extent of 1 acre 84.5 cents. It is
the further case of the petitioner that, the said "Etti Kulam" was under the
control and management as well as maintenance of Vanniyakula
Kshatriya Community from 1729 onwards. For the past 300 years, the
said "Etti Kulam" has been maintained by the said community people.
However, in the the revenue records it stands as "Kulam" and also no
patta was given.
4. Therefore, in order to mutate the revenue records in the name of
the Sangam, the petitioner has given a representation on 26.06.2018 to
the revenue authorities, i.e., respondents herein. However, the said
representation, according to the petitioner, has not been considered by
the respondents for grant of patta in respect of the said tank called
"Etti Kulam" to and in favour of the petitioner Sangam. Seeking the said
relief, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5. When the case is called, there is no representation for the
petitioner, however, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
Government appearing for the respondents by relying upon the
averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents, i.e., third respondent, has submitted that, the tank in
question is a water body and that in the revenue records, it has been
recorded as such. He further added that, for time immemorial, it has been
a water body and such kind of water bodies can never be given by way of
patta to any individual or group of individuals like the present petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the Government would also submit that,
the Courts have given repeated orders in number of cases that, no water
body shall be parted away to any individual or group of individuals for
any purpose and the Government shall be very careful in giving patta in
the water bodies poramboke lands.
7. Therefore, citing the said reasons, the learned counsel for the
Government vehemently opposed the prayer sought for herein and would
further submit that, the said representation of the petitioner dated
26.06.2018 cannot be considered and the relief sought for therein can
never be granted to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
8. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Government appearing for the respondents and have
perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The following averments have been made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents:
"2. It is submitted that the petitioner has
submitted an application on 26.06.2018 to the
respondents for the assignment of the land in
Survey No.338/3 measuring 0.61.5 Hectre in
Madam Village of Tiruttani Taluk in favour of
their Vanniyakula Kshatriyar Dharma Sathira
Sangam based on a Thamara Paathiram said to
have been given by the King of Karvatti Town
Maha Mandaleeswara Kadari Salva Makka Raju
on 01.07.1929. The land is issue is classified as
Edikulam (Pond) Poramboke in the Village
Accounts. Following his application dated
26.06.2018, the petitioner has filed this Writ
Petition before this Hon'ble Court. The land is
water body and it is used by general public as
water source in and around the pond.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
3. With respect to avernments in para 6 and
7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the land in
Survey No.338/3 for which the assignment is
requested by the petitioner is classified as
Edikulam (Pond) poramboke in the revenue
accounts. The Government have banned the
assignment of water course poramboke land in
G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue Department dated
20.01.1987. Further, the ryotwari pattas granted
in respect of private tank and Oorani to the
private individuals during the time of settlement
under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act 1948 had also been cancelled by
the amended section 14A(2) of the said Act.
Hence, no private individuals issued ryotwari
patta for the land classified as water course
poramboke. It is further submit no such claim
also made by any of the parties during settlement
process and therefore it became final. The
Hon'ble court in the landmark judgment in
L.Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
2005-3-L.W.313 was pleased to order that all the
encroachments in the water course porambokes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
should be evicted and they should also be
restored to their previous position as classified in
the revenue accounts. As such, the land in Survey
No.338/3, classified as Edikulam in Madam
Village cannot be assigned to the petitioner. An
endorsement narrating the above facts in
R.C.2000/2018/B1, dated 07.03.2018 has been
sent to the petitioner by registered post with
Acknowledgment date on 07.08.2018. The
petitioner does not have any valid documents to
prove their ownership for the land. The alleged
document namely "Thamira Paathiram" does not
have created any right to the petitioner since it is
not a valid document."
10. Apart from the aforesaid judgment cited in the narration of the
counter of the respondents, many number of orders have been repeatedly
passed by this Court that, no water body shall be given by way of
assignment or patta to any third party for any laudable purpose, however
laudable it may be.
11. When that being so, since the tank in question is a water body
and it is still as a water body, the same cannot be asked to be given patta
in favour of anyone including the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
12. Moreover, if at all, the petitioner is a Society consisting of a
particular community people, they cannot make any claim of Government
water body for their exclusive utility. Under the provisions of the
Constitution, it has been ensured that, all water bodies especially the
public tanks or wells are concerned, that should be open to the general
public and there can be no discrimination on the basis of caste for the
purpose of utilizing the public tank or well.
13. When such constitutional mandate has been given, the present
prayer sought for by the petitioner to seek for a patta of a public tank in
favour of the petitioner is nothing but an unconstitutional move and
moreover, even if it is not a public tank and only it is a water body, even
then, no one can seek for patta much less the present petitioner.
14. Moreover, the petitioner's association is claimed to have been
established only some time in the year 2006 and before that, how the
present members of the petitioner's association had the exclusive use of
the tank called "Etti Kulam" has not been averred anywhere in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
affidavit and in support of their case, no document has been filed before
this Court except the claim that, 300 years back, some assignment had
been given to some community people.
15. Based on such claim allegedly taken place before 300 years
ago, the present plea made by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
16. Moreover, if at all, any grant was given by Ex-ruler in the 18 th
century, the present petitioner cannot seek any inherited rights over the
property, that too in a public tank for the petitioner's association,
admittedly, established only on 14.01.2006.
17. Therefore, absolutely, there is no reason or justification for the
present plea made by the petitioner. Therefore, the present request made
through the representation dated 26.06.2018 to the respondents revenue
authorities cannot be directed to be considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
18. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept
the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed, hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
24.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
vji
To
1. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Tiruttani Division,
Chennai - Tiruppati Road,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
3. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tiruttani Taluk,
Chennai - Tiruppati Road,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
4. The Revenue Inspector,
Tiruttani Town, Tiruttani Taluk,
Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
5. The Village Administrative Officer,
Madam Village, Tiruttani Town and Taluk,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District - 631 209.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
W.P. No. 18686 of 2018
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
