Madras High Court
V.Shanmugam vs The Tahsildar on 21 June, 2022
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
V.Shanmugam .. Appellant
vs
The Tahsildar,
Kangayam Taluk, Kangayam,
Tiruppur District. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 10.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.14364 of 2021 on the file of
this Court.
For the Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam
For the Respondent : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Govt. Pleader
*****
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, challenge is made to the judgment dated
10.11.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant to
challenge the order dated 10.06.2021 with a direction to the
respondent to issue patta in favour of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the writ appellant submits that despite an
order issued by the Government to grant patta in favour of those who
are in possession of the land for more than five years, the
representation made by the appellant was rejected despite long
possession of the appellant on the land in question. Referring to a sale
deed, it is submitted that the writ appellant's father had purchased the
land and since then, they are in peaceful enjoyment of it, but, the fact
aforesaid was also ignored by the learned Single Judge. The order of
the learned Single Judge is even in ignorance of the decree passed on
a suit, though it may be partition decree between the appellant and his
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
brothers but was having relevance to the issue raised in the petition
and to prove the possession and right to get patta. The writ appellant
had even submitted the house tax receipts which stood in the name of
the appellant's father and thereby, the learned Single Judge has
wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove
his possession. It may be true that the land in question is classified as
Government Poromboke, but in the light of the order issued by the
Government, the appellant was entitled to get patta and accordingly,
the prayer is to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
the order impugned in the writ petition, with a direction to the
respondent to issue patta of the land in question to the appellant.
3. We have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
4. It is not in dispute that the land in question for which patta
has been sought by the appellant is classified as "Government
Poromboke". The right on the land has been claimed based on the
decree passed by a Civil Court. The learned Single Judge found that
the decree is for partition between the appellant and his brothers
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
where the revenue department was not a party to the litigation and
thereby, no claim can be based on the decree between the appellant
and his brothers.
5. The learned Single Judge further found that the appellant
could not prove his possession, so also his father and for that purpose,
even the reference of sale deed of the land was taken into
consideration. The sale deed produced by the writ appellant does not
show purchase of the property by his father. The appellant claimed
purchase of the property by his grand father, but the learned Single
Judge did not find any document to prove the relationship. In the
absence of the proof of relationship with the purchaser, the right
claimed by the appellant was not accepted. It is more so when the
appellant's father is alive, but he did not pursue the claim for
regularisation or for grant of patta, but it has been pursued by the
appellant and in any case, documents should have been submitted to
prove the relationship of the appellant with that of the purchaser
named in the sale deed. In the absence of proof, the statement in
regard to the relationship of the appellant with that of the purchaser
was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, so also the possession
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
of land by the appellant.
6. The appellant has claimed right to get patta based on the
order issued by the Government in the year 2019. The direction has
not been given that all the encroachers of the land should be given
patta, rather a policy or a scheme was framed to settle the issue in the
light of the fact that large encroachment on the Government land and
even on waterbodies was found, thus, to rehabilitate them, the order
was issued. The order aforesaid cannot be read against the statute,
rather the right for allotment of land / grant of patta should flow from
the Revenue Laws or any other provision for that purpose. The
Government land cannot be allotted in any manner prayed by the
appellant, but only after considering the underlying facts and the
provisions of law.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, even we do not find that a claim
can be based on the order of the Government and otherwise, the order
cannot be endorsed in absence of provision for issuance of patta to the
encroacher even on the land belonging to a waterbody.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any reason
to cause interference in the order of the learned Single Judge. The
writ appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
21.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
sra
To:
The Tahsildar,
Kangayam Taluk, Kangayam,
Tiruppur District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(sra)
W.A.No.1281 of 2022
21.06.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
