Madras High Court
T.Ramachandran vs The District Collector on 14 June, 2022
W.A.No.257 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.257 of 2022
T.Ramachandran .. Appellant
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Hosur. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.03.2021 in W.P.No.3308 of 2011.
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated
15.03.2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner to seek direction for grant of patta and to set aside the order
dated 24.12.2010 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the "A"
Register, the names of the appellant's ancestors exist and for that
reason the land is in the possession of the appellant. For the purpose
of development, the appellant prays for grant of patta, but it was
refused by the respondent/revenue authority without even providing
an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order may be set aside
and the matter may be remanded to the competent authority with a
direction to hear the appellant before passing the order.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant would be
in a position to prove that the land in question is under his occupation.
Though the names of the appellant's ancestors exist in the revenue
record, the same has been corrected and stated as “Sarkar
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
poramboke”. The entry aforesaid was challenged by the appellant by
submitting an application with a prayer to grant patta, however, the
application of the appellant was rejected by the order dated
24.12.2010. Thus, the writ petition was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced a copy of
the revenue record to indicate that Survey No.3/3A and 3/3B were
existing in the names of the appellant's ancestors and, therefore, he is
in rightful possession and entitled to seek patta for the land. The
prayer is, accordingly, to set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge so as the order dated 24.12.2010 with a direction to the
respondents to issue patta in favour of the appellant for the land in
question.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant and also perused the materials available on record.
6. The appellant has made an application for grant of patta. The
application aforesaid was considered after holding a survey and
thereupon, the District Revenue Officer and Additional Executive
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
Magistrate, Krishnagiri has passed a detailed order on 24.12.2010.
The prayer for grant of patta in favour of the appellant was not
accepted for the reason that the land was recorded as "Sarkar
poramboke" in the revenue record, with an indication of "cart track"
and "lake" in Column 31 of the Settlement Land Register (SLR). A
finding in that regard has been recorded in the order dated
24.12.2010.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the revenue
record (SLR) produced before this Court today, submits that the
names of the appellant's ancestors exist in the revenue record. But by
an illegal correction, their names were omitted and, therefore, a
challenge to it was made with a prayer to grant patta in favour of the
appellant. The second respondent rejected the application of the
appellant and thereupon even the challenge to the rejection order was
not accepted by the learned Single Judge, ignoring the revenue
records and the right of the appellant to seek patta of the land which
was given to the appellant's ancestors as Grant (Inam).
8. The issue has been examined by the learned Single Judge in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
detail and we do not find any error therein. It is more so, when the
appellant has failed to show any document to prove his title. If the
land in question was given to the ancestors of the appellant as Inam,
then, a copy of the document should have been produced to prove the
right and title in the land. But no such document has been produced
by the appellant. The learned Single Judge, however, found that an
entry as "Sarkar poramboke" exists even prior to the UDR and
subsequent thereto. Thus, the land was recorded as "Sarkar
poramboke". The revenue record produced before this Court today by
the appellant, no doubt, indicates the names of the ancestors of the
appellant in one of the Columns, but in the relevant Column 31, it has
been mentioned as "cart track" and "lake" and otherwise in the initial
Column, it is shown as Government poramboke land. No record has
been produced to show that the names of the appellant's ancestors
was ever shown in the revenue records. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the claim made by the appellant
seeking issuance of patta.
9. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause
interference in the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1875 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (N.M., J.)
15.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To:
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Hosur.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.257 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
N.MALA, J.
bbr
W.A.No.257 of 2022
15.06.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
