Madras High Court
S.Kumar vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2022
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 11.07.2022
Pronounced On 13.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.31538 of 2016
S.Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Project Director,
District Urban Development Agency,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Commissioner,
Panchayat Union,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur,
Hosur Taluk.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
5.The Tahsildar,
Hosur Taluk,
(R5 Suo motu impleaded vide order
dated 08.04.2022 made in
W.P.No.36690/2016) ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
remove obstructions made in petitioner's property and not evict except
due process of law from S.No.67 of Bagalur Village, Hosur Taluk an
extent of 3 cents, which has been declared by the Civil Court decree
dated 23.10.1992 in O.S.No.158 of 1985 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Hosur and further directing the respondents to pay
compensation to the petitioner for causing damages.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Ohm Prakash
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For R1,R2 & R4 : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
Addl.Govt.Pleader.
For R3 : Mr.M.Elumalai
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the respondents to remove the obstructions made in petitioner's
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
property and not to evict the petitioner except with due process of law from
S.No.67 of Bagalur Village, Hosur Taluk an extent of 3 centsand to further
direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for causing
damage.
2. According to the petitioner, the ownership of the land has been
declared by the District Munsif Court, Hosur in its judgment and decree
dated 23.10.1992 in O.S.No.158 of 1985.
3. It is submitted that earlier the property in question was a
“Gramanatham” in composite S.No.67 of Bagalur Village, Hosur Taluk. It
is submitted that the land in question was assigned to the petitioner's father
by way of Housing Scheme Development Patta (HSD Patta) on 05.08.1969.
4. It is submitted that petitioner's father was in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property after the land was assigned on 5.08.1069. The
petitioner claims to be the owner of the aforesaid property after during his
lifetime, the petitioner’s father executed a Gift Deed dated 28.03.1985 in
favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.945 of 1985.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
5. It is the case of the petitioner that one B.T.Rajanna,who was the
President of Bagalur Panchayat attempted to grab the said property from the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.158 of 1985 before the
District Munsif Court for a declaration and a permanent injunction which
was decreed on 23.10.1992 and possession was taken pursuant to EP
proceeding.
6. The suit was decreed based on the contradictions elicited in the
evidence of the first witness of the defendants namely (R.W.1) one
Murugan. It appears that before the Trial Court, the second defendants
namely the Revenue Inspector stated that the assignment made originally in
favour of the petitioner's father in the year 1969 was cancelled. However,
copy of the cancellation order was not filed and therefore the case of the
petitioner was accepted and defence of the defendants was rejected.
7. Though, it was alleged that B.T.Rajanna,who was the President of
Bagalur Panchayat attempted to grab the said property from the petitioner,
O.S.No.158 of 1985 was filed only against the the District Collector (first
respondent herein) and the Revenue Inspector.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
8. It was stated that the daughter-in-law of the said B.T.Rajanna who
was the President of Bagaur Panchayat once again attempted to grab the said
property after 30 years from the petitioner. Thus, the first respondent
demolished the shop of the petitioner while demolishing the commercial
complex in the bus stand. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition. It is therefore submitted that the action of the first respondent was
liable to be interfered and the writ petition deserves to be allowed as prayed
for.
9. Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader
for the first, second and fourth respondents submits that the petitioner has an
alternate remedy before the Trial Court to establish his rights. It is further
submitted that the property in question was demolished and therefore there
is a contradiction in the stand of the petitioner.
10. It is further submitted that the District Collector passed orders in
his proceedings Na.Ka.No 1924/2016/No1 dated 01.02.2016 and thus
commercial building was demolished considering the safety of the General
Public who use the bus stand. It is submitted that the petitioner was an
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 5 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
encroacher who had put a shop. The order passed by the District collector
was based on the resolution passed by the Panchayat Union dated
12.10.2015.
11. Based on the orders of this court on 13.04.2022 the revenue
officials conducted an inspection of the subject property and had found that
the land to the exent of 3 cents claimed by the petitioner in survey no 67/1
was mentioned as bus stand as per revenue records.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner was allotted the land in
S.No.69/20 measuring an extent of 165 sq.mt (4.077cents) and was issued
with Patta No.156 in the same Gramanatham property which fact has been
suppressed by the petitioner.
13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Government Pleader
for the first, second and fourth respondents and the learned counsel for the
third respondent.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 6 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
14. Even though, Mr. B.T. Rajanna and his family were allegedly
instrumental in the demolition of the shop and 3 cents of land to grab the
land from the petitioner and to oust the petitioner from the said property,the
petitioner has failed to implead B.T. Rajanna and his family as a party to this
Writ Petition.
15. The total extent of land in composite S.No.67 in Bagalur Village,
in Hosur Taluk of Krishnagiri District, was 23.79 Acres. The petitioner's
father appears to have been issued with an Assignment Patta dated
05.08.1969 under Housing Scheme Development for an extent of 3 cents in
S.No 67 Bangalur Village, Hosur Taluk of Krishnagiri District.
16. This document was marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.158 of 1985 filed
by the petitioner against the District Collector and Revenue Inspector.
However, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the said Assignment patta
issued on 05.08.1969 to the petitioner's father.
17. At the time, when the assignment was made in favour of the
petitioner's father, there was no sub-division of land in S.No 67 in Bagalur
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 7 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
Village, in Hosur Taluk of Krishnagiri District. It was composite S.No.67.
Subsequently, the land was subdivided into S.No.67/1 and S.No.67/2 as
follows:-
S.No. Survey No. Classification Extent Present Status
1 67/1 Government Poromboke 0.48.0 Hec. Bus Stand
(1.18 Acres)
2 67/2 Government Poromboke 9.15.0 Hec. Grama Natham(4
Wells in the Village
(22.61 Acres)
site dug prior to the
year 1884
18. A commercial building in the bus stand existed in a dilapidated
condition in Survey No.67/1 adjacent to which the petitioner was allegedly
having a shop. The commercial building was demolished on 26.02.2016 for
building a new commercial complex pursuant to the resolution of the
Panchayat.
19. After the demolition work was completed on 07.03.2016. the
petitioner filed a complaint stating that his shop was also demolished with a
malafide intention at the behest of B.T Rajanna and his family.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 8 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
20. When the sub division was made for the Bus Stand, the
Government of Tamil Nadu would have ensured that all the previous
assignments if any that were made earlier, would have been cancelled and
the assignees, would have been suitably rehabilitated.
21. Probably, a fresh allotment of land would have been made to
those who were issued with Assignment Patta and displaced. However, this
aspect is not coming out clearly in the pleadings.
22.The facts on record also indicate that the petitioner himself has got
a patta for a patch of land in S.No.69/20 measuring an extent of 165 Sq. Mt.,
i.e. 4.077 Cents (165 Sq.mtr x 0.0247 = 4.077 Cents] in S.No 67 Bangalur
Village, Hosur Taluk of Krishnagiri District.
23. If the petitioner's father was given an assignment patta in respect
of land in the year 1969 measuring an extent of 3 cents, it remains to be
explained as to how the petitioner would have independently got an extent
of 4.077 cents of land in S.No.69/20 in the same village.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 9 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
24. Hypothesis in the Judgment and Decree of the Trail Court dated
23.10.1992 in O.S.No.158 of 1985 based on the sketch filed by the
petitioner before this court appears to be improbable. Further, the exercise
under the Updating Registry Scheme (UDR) was taken between 1979 to
1988 for the first time.
25. If the petitioner was in possession of the aforesaid land where the
Bus Stand was situated, a fresh the patta would have been issued in favour
of the petitioner under the Updating Registry Scheme (UDR). The
petitioner has not produced the same.
26. Determination of identity of the land based on the Assignment
Patta dated 05.08.1969 which was marked as Ex.A.1 in O.S.No.158 of 1985
vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.1992, appears to be improbable.
Whether the property fell within the purview of land in S.No.67/1 or in
S.No.69, can be determined only after proper examination of the records
available with the petitioner and the respondents. In my view, prima facie,
the petitioner cannot have two different parcels of land in S.No.67/1 and
S.No.69/20 either by himself or through his father.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 10 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
27. There is no merit in the present Writ Petition. However it is open
for the petitioner to produce a copy of the Assignment Patta dated
05.08.1969 issued to the petitioner’s father along with the patta issued for
the land in S.No.69/20 before the respondents to substantiate his rights over
the property.
28. The petitioner is therefore directed to furnish the documents
before the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the assignment of land in S.No.67/1
was issued in favour of the petitioner's father and the assignment of land in
S.No.69/20 were assigned independently, the respondents are directed to
give an alternate site to the petitioner in lieu of the land assigned to the
petitioner's father vide assignment patta dated 05.08.1969 in S.No.67/1
Bagalur Village, Hosur Taluk as there is a Bus Stand after subdivision of
Government Poromboke land in S.No. 67 as S.No 67/1 and 67/2. On
receipt of documents, the respondents shall take a considered decision based
on the available records with the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on
merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 11 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order.
29. This Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.07.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kkd
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 12 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Project Director,
District Urban Development Agency,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Commissioner,
Panchayat Union,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur,
Hosur Taluk.
5.The Tahsildar,
Hosur Taluk,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 13 of 14
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
C.SARAVANAN, J.
kkd
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.36690 of 2016
13.07.2022
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 14 of 14
