Madras High Court
A.Gowthaman vs 8 Saminathan on 22 April, 2022
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
A.Gowthaman .. Appellant
Vs.
1 The District Collector
First Floor, Collectorate
Nagapattinam - 611 001.
2 The Tahsildar
Tharangampadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District.
3 The Special Tahsildar
Natham Nilavari Thittam
Tharangampadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District.
4 The Special Tahsildar
Adi Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Department
First Floor, Collectoarate
Nagapattinam- 611 001.
5 The Village Administrative Officer
Tharangampadi Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
6 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Office
Myladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.
7 P.Rajendhran
8 Saminathan .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.15733 of 2020.
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment
dated 24.11.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellant to include and record the Patta No.816 issued by the third
respondent in favour of the appellant in the revenue records was
dismissed.
2. The writ petition has been dismissed finding that the third
respondent had no authority to issue patta and otherwise no record
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
exists in the revenue department to indicate that patta was ever
issued in favour of the appellant. It is also a fact that the land
aforesaid was earmarked for shops and playground. Thus, there
was no question of allotment of patta for house-site. The fact
further recorded by the learned Single Judge is regarding fabrication
of the document. It was also held that the appellant was an
encroacher on the land and the encroachment was removed
subsequently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a patta was
issued by the third respondent in favour of the appellant and it is
only thereafter he took possession of the land. Thus, the patta
issued in favour of the appellant cannot be said to be fabricated. It
is more so when in respect of pattas issued to similarly placed
persons by the same authority no action has been taken.
4. It is further submitted that the appellant is not an
encroacher, but was holding a patta in his favour and, therefore,
the prayer is to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
and accept the prayer made in the writ petition.
5. We have considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
6. The writ petition was filed to seek a direction on the
respondents to record the patta in the revenue records. The
learned Single Judge did not accept the prayer after going through
the patta, firstly on the ground that the third respondent, i.e., the
Special Tahsildar, was having no authority to issue patta, rather the
authority for it was lying with the District Adi Dravidar Welfare
Officer, Nagapattinam.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment further shows that
land comprised in Survey No.13/5B was acquired for granting free
house site pattas to houseless Adi Dravidars and 34 house site
pattas were granted. The vacant site was allotted for construction
of fair price shop. The appellant encroached the said land and put
up a small hut, for which objection was raised by the villagers and
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
when no action was taken, a complaint was made to remove the
encroachment. When the matter was sent for verification by the
second respondent, a report was sought from the Taluk Sub
Inspector of Survey and it was found that no patta was issued in
favour of the appellant in Patta No.816. Therefore, the patta
produced by the appellant is a fabricated one and it was also found
that the appellant is not residing at the site in respect of which he is
claiming patta, but residing at R.S.No.13/20, which stands in the
name of his mother. The learned Single Judge further noted that
during the pendency of the writ petition, an application was also
filed by the general public alleging that the appellant is an
encroacher of the land and on their complaint, the encroachment
was removed.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, no case was
found in favour of the appellant to grant the relief for recording the
patta in the revenue register. Rather, a perusal of the so-called
patta does not show it to be a patta, but a proposal. The appellant
is otherwise residing at the land comprised in Survey No.13/20,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
which belongs to his mother.
In view of above, we do not find any error in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge so as to cause interference. Accordingly,
the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.6632 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
22.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
To:
1 The District Collector
First Floor, Collectorate
Nagapattinam - 611 001.
2 The Tahsildar
Tharangampadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District.
3 The Special Tahsildar
Natham Nilavari Thittam
Tharangampadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District.
4 The Special Tahsildar
Adi Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Department
First Floor, Collectoarate
Nagapattinam- 611 001.
5 The Village Administrative Officer
Tharangampadi Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
6 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Office
Myladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.1055 of 2022
22.04.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
