Madras High Court
M.Mahmood Maraikkayar vs 5 R.Kavitha on 28 April, 2022
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
M.Mahmood Maraikkayar .. Appellant
Vs
1 The District Collector
Coimbatore District
Coimbatore.
2 The District Revenue Officer
Coimbatore.
3 The Tahsildar
Coimbatore North
Coimbatore.
4 R.Kuppuraj
5 R.Kavitha .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
judgment dated 21.3.2022 passed in W.P.No.8098 of 2012.
For the Appellant : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
____________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
for respondents 1 to 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment
dated 21.3.2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated 24.2.2012 and seeking a direction to
issue patta in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed finding
no right in favour of the appellant, considering the nature of the
land.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant alleging that the
property formed part of 1 acre and 10 cents comprised in Survey
No.143/2 of No.2, Goodalur Village, Coimbatore Taluk originally
possessed by Venkatasamy Naidu and on his demise, it was
inherited by his son Ranganathan, along with the tamarind trees.
The Special Tahsildar, Coimbatore, then assigned the said property
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
to Ranganathan and, accordingly, he remained in possession of the
land.
3. It is stated that after the demise of Ranganathan, his three
children entered into a partition deed. The property was also sub-
divided and separate pattas were obtained by them. They remain
in possession and enjoyment of the property. The land was then
purchased by the petitioner. On the basis of complaint made by
third party that the land is poramboke land, the second respondent
issued a notice requiring the appellant to appear for an inquiry. The
appellant participated in the inquiry and submitted all the
documents for consideration, yet an adverse order was passed to
cancel the patta and to take possession of the land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the
patta was granted in favour of Ranganathan by the Special
Tahsildar, it could not have been cancelled on the ground taken by
the competent authority. It is more so when the appellant
purchased the land subsequently and was issued a certificate of title
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
on 27.8.2010. The cancellation of the said certificate and patta is
per se illegal because under the settlement scheme, the Special
Tahsildar was having authority to allot land and issue patta. It is
not so prohibited even for “Cornation Tope”. It was entered in the
revenue records on issuance of patta by the Special Tahsildar and,
therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the land is
government poramboke land.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge ignoring the fact
that patta was granted to the appellant by the competent authority
and its cancellation has affected the rights of the appellant.
Therefore, the prayer is to set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and the order passed by the District Revenue Officer
dated 24.2.2012, with a direction to the petitioner to protect the
trees in the land, but without dispossessing the appellant, as he is
in possession and enjoyment of the land for many years, having
purchased the same under a valid sale deed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the records.
7. We find that after notice of enquiry, the District Revenue
Officer passed a detailed order dated 24.2.2012. The second
respondent has taken note of all the relevant aspects of the matter
before passing the order adverse to the interest of the appellant.
Since the said order refers to all the relevant facts which are
material to this case, instead of reiterating those facts, the relevant
paragraphs of the said order are quoted hereunder:
“In this case, the complaints, statements of the
above said persons, old 'A' register, old village and
Taluk Accounts, and the report of the Asst. Director
of District Land Survey, the documents produced on
the side of the respondents, and the facts mentioned
during the enquiry were carefully perused with great
care. When the documents were perused in detail, it
is revealed that as per the village old 'A' register
(document of the year 1914) the disputed land
comprised in S.F.143/2 is found to be classified as
government poramboke and mentioned cornation
tope. Further S.F.143/2 is comprised in old survey
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
No. S.F.143. S.F.143 was subdivided as S.F.143/1, 2
and 3. This S.F.143 was classified as poramboke
initially, and thereafter when it was sub divided into
three parts, they were kept as poramboke only. As it
is poramboke land, the kist and levy were not
assessed. As per the village documents, as the
tamarind trees were available from the year 1914, it
has to be considered that it was mentioned as tope.
It was existing as such still 1362 fasli. But in the
permanent register of the villa 'A' register, without
any proof whatsoever, from fasli 1363, it was
mentioned as temporary patta and the kist of
Rs.1.08 was mentioned in respect of the survey
No.143/2 measuring acres 1.10, in the name of
Thiru.Venkitasamy Naidu, continuously. As far as the
patta is concerned, there is type whatsoever called
as temporary patta. In the statement which was
submitted by the Village Administrative Officer and
the Village Assistants, the land comprised in
S.F.No.143/2, called as cornation tope, yield of the
tamarind trees thereon were enjoyed by
Thiru.Ranganathan. The legal heirs of
Thiru.Ranganathan, viz., Thiru.Kuppuraj and Kavitha
had in their statement mentioned that their
grandfather Thiru. Venkidusamy Naidu, and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
thereafter, his son Thiru.Ranganathan occupied the
above said poramboke land and they have bene in
the enjoyment of the yield of the tamarind trees. The
main part of the statement deposed by them are as
follows:
'When I was young, there was a tile roof
house, and a round well on the above said
land. From the above said Well, the water
will be fetched and brought to thanneer
panthal and the cattle on the road through
the water storage tank and was used as
drinking water. My grandfather was giving
the drinking water to the cattle and public
and he had been staying in the tile roof
house on the above said land.'
Therefore, it is confirmed that the above said land
has been used for public purpose form time
immemorial. The above said land was mentioned
indicated as cornation tope till the time when the
settlement scheme came into force. Further in order
to enjoy the tamarind trees on this land, Thiru.
Venkidusamy and after his demise, Thiru.
Ranganathan had paid the land tax is clearly
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
revealed through the challans and the village
documents. When the documents were perused, this
land was inspected by the Special Tahsildar,
Coimbatore on 26.07.1975 and the following
remarks were made.
'Thiru. Ranganathan constructed tile house
and dug well and occupied.
There is no objection to assign the
pulianthope land.'
In Fasli 1385, the Special Tahsildar, site inspected
the disputed land on 20.10.1975 and made the
following remark.
'Inspected the land in connection with
assignment proposal.'
Therefore, as per the above said remarks and the
documents, this land had been continuously a
poramboke land till the settlement scheme came into
force, and that this poramboke land was in the
occupation of Venkidusamy and that thereafter was
in the occupation of his son Thiru. Ranganathan is
clearly revealed. When the documents are perused,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
it is revealed that the assignment was not granted in
respect of the above said land. Further, as per the
guidelines in the Revenue Standing Orders bearing
No.15(38)(iv) the poramboke lands which are
classified as "tope" land are not granted with any
assignment, whatsoever. Therefore, it is revealed
that the assignment was not granted for the above
said land.
This being so, at the time of settlement scheme, this
land which was classified as poramboke, was
converted as the patta land, without following the
rules and regulations, and the Patta No.3135 was
issued by the Special Tahsildar, Settlement Scheme.
When under the settlement scheme, the assignment
of the poramboke lands were not granted, there is
no provision to convert the lands as patta land. The
Special Tahsildar, settlement scheme does not have
such authority to grant patta. Further as the
disputed land is classified as 'tope; land, there is bar
for the assignment in respect of this land. Therefore,
as the disputed land was classified as cornation tope
before the settlement scheme, and that as it is a
poramboke land which has bar for the assignment,
there is no provision to convert these poramboke
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
lands as patta lands. The disputed land has been in
the public use from time immemorial. Recently in the
judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No.7132/2011, in
the judgment delivered on 23.01.2011, it was held
that even though there is illegal occupation in the
public utility lands, the same could not be
regularized and that these types of lands have to be
recovered immediately. The disputed land is situated
on Coimbatore - Mettupalayam Main Road, which is
an important place. The government poramboke
lands which are worth of several crores of rupees
could not be claimed by the individual persons.
Therefore, on the above said grounds, as per the
power vested as per the Government Order (Ms)
No.385 Revenue (Genl-3) Department dated
17.08.2004, the conversion of the government
poramboke survey number S.F.143/2, No.2, Gudalur
South Village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk, is ordered
to carry out the rectification of defects, and to again
classify the same as government poramboke -
carnation tope and to cancel the proceedings of
Coimbatore (north) Tahsildar, under ref: R.D.R.
1746/2010 dated 14.09.2010, and the survey Nos.
S.F.143/2A, 2B and 2C are combined as S.F.143/2.
Further the Certificate of title as per
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
Moo.Mu.15471/2010/Aa4 dated 27.08.2010 issued
by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) is hereby
ordered to be cancelled.
In order to recover the above said survey number
and protect them and to protect the land from any
encroachment, it is hereby ordered to the Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North to send the necessary
recommendation to take thus survey number to the
Book of Prohibition. Further as the tamarind trees
were cut and removed from the above said survey
numbers, in connection with the loss and imposing of
fine, Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) is requested to
send a special report. Further Tahsildar, Coimbatore
(North) is requested to send the report of necessary
Rectification of defect in the village documents, and
the copies of the village accounts, through an
individual.
Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) is instructed to
execute this order immediately. Dictated by me on
24.02.2012, typed and verified by me.”
8. A perusal of the order shows not only the nature of the
land, but all the relevant facts as to how the patta was issued in the
name of Ranganathan. It is, however, with a finding that under the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
settlement scheme, no authority vested in the Special Tahsildar to
issue a patta, especially when the land is classified as “Tope” and
there is a bar on assignment of such land consisting of valuable
trees.
9. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote paragraph
38(iv) under RSO 15 of the Standing Orders of the Board of
Revenue, which reads as under:
“(iv) Land containing topes or valuable trees:- Where
any land contains large groups of palmyrahs or fruit
trees or valuable timber trees, whether growing
spontaneously, or artificially, it is generally desirable
to keep the ownership in the hands of Government
for forest purposes. Where there are groups of fruit
trees or valuable timber trees on the land darkhasted
for, the District Forest Officer should be consulted.
The order of the Divisional Officer should then be
obtained. If it is desired to retain such land in the
hands of Government, they should be entered as
'reserved'.”
10. The provision aforesaid shows that in respect of a land
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
containing large groups of palmyrahs or fruit trees or valuable
timber tree, it is generally desirable to keep the ownership in the
hands of the government for forest purposes.
11. A further reference to paragraph 2(a) under RSO 18 of the
Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue has been made and the
same is quoted hereunder:
“2. Trees on unoccupied lands.- Collectors should
exercise special care before assigning lands
containing scattered trees or topes.
(a) Valuable topes.- Lands on which there are large
groups of palmyrah, date palms, fruit-trees or
valuable timber trees, whether growing
spontaneously or cultivated, should usually not be
assigned, but should be retained in the hands of the
Government for abkari or forest purposes. If any
trees standing on such lands are given or sold for
domestic purposes, the Panchayat concerned should
arrange to have others planted in their stead.”
12. The provision aforesaid usually bars assignment of land.
Rather, such lands should be retained in the hands of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
government for abkari or forest purposes.
13. However, going against the aforesaid provisions contained
in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, a patta was given
under the settlement scheme, though the authority was not existing
in the Special Tahsildar to do so.
14. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge so as to cause interference
therein and further we hold that the appellant has no right to get a
direction for issuance of patta for the land classified as “Tope”, as
shown in the revenue records of 1940. The writ appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.7847 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
28.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
To:
1 The District Collector
Coimbatore District
Coimbatore.
2 The District Revenue Officer
Coimbatore.
3 The Tahsildar
Coimbatore North
Coimbatore.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.1242 of 2022
28.04.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
