Madras High Court
P.Singaravelu vs The District Collector on 30 March, 2022
W.A.No.765 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.3.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.765 of 2022 &
CMP.No.5034 of 2022
P.Singaravelu .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Tahsildar, Alandur,
Chennai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai-45.
4.The Taluk Surveyor, Alandur
Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur,
Chennai.
5.The Commissioner, Greater
Chennai Corporation,
Corporation Buildings,
Chennai-9.
6.The Estate Officer, Defence
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
Ministry, Fort St.George, Chennai.
7.The H Colonel, Officers Training
Academy, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai-16. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 18.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.19771 of 2016.
For Appellant : Ms.V.Bagyalakshmi
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader accepts
notice for respondents 1 to 4.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
3. By this writ appeal, a challenge to the order dated
18.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.19771 of 2016 was made whereby
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was disposed of along
with Contempt Petition No.750 of 2017. The contempt petition was
filed alleging non compliance of the interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition. However, the order passed
in the contempt petition has not been assailed and therefore, we
are not concerned with that in this judgment. Rather, what has
been challenged is the order passed in the writ petition.
4. The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent - District Collector assigning the lands notified and
classified as Government Poromboke in the Revenue A Register. A
reference to S.Nos.89, 90, 96, 97 and 98, Tulasingapuram at
Nandambakkam within Chennai Corporation limits was also given to
seek a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to measure and earmark the
lands in S.Nos.89 and 90 to have an approach road and to direct the
fifth respondent to lay a pucca approach road as per Sections 203 and
204 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act.
5. The matter has to be examined now, though after a detailed
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
discussion, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge after
taking note of the relevant facts without going into the issue of laches
in challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated
17.12.1987 by maintaining a writ petition in 2016 i.e almost after 29
years.
6. The writ petition should have been dismissed for challenging
the order dated 17.12.1987 passed by the first respondent on the
ground of laches itself. In any case, the learned Single Judge had
taken into consideration the status of different survey numbers as
exist in the revenue records. A detailed discussion of those survey
numbers has been given in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the order under
challenge.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
a general direction has been given to the respondents 1 to 5 to
remove the encroachments, ignoring the fact that the lands S.Nos.
91/1A and 91/1B are patta lands and therefore, they cannot be stated
to be encroached lands. The appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the
land from the patta holder whose name exists in the revenue records
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
against S.No.91/1A and otherwise, the writ petition was preferred on
behalf of the villagers. On the apprehension that they would be evicted
in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ
appeal has been filed. S.No.91/1A is not a defence land, but treating it
to be a defence land a direction has been given, and would affect not
only the appellant, but also the villagers.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records.
9. The writ petition was filed basically challenging the order
dated 17.12.1987 passed by the first respondent assigning the lands
notified and classified as Government poromboke in the Revenue A
Register. The challenge was not acceptable after a lapse of 29 years
without justifying the delay. Though the writ petition has been filed
challenging the classification against S.Nos.89, 90, 96, 97 and 98, now
the writ appeal has been argued largely with reference to S.No.91/1A.
The reason for arguing the case with reference to S.No.91/1A is that in
the counter filed in the writ petition, the respondents made an
allegation against the appellant for encroaching the aforesaid land,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
though the said survey number was not included in the original prayer
in the writ petition.
10. To examine as to whether any direction has been given with
reference to S.No.91/1A, we have to refer to certain paragraphs of the
order under challenge and for that purpose, paragraphs 18 and 19 are
quoted as hereunder :
"18. The Tahsildar / 2 nd respondent in his
counter affidavit has stated that some residents at
Tulasingapuram have encroached the following lands
and residing long time and the details are as follows:
S.No Survey No. Extract Classification Remarks
Extension
1 94 0.60.5 Village site 37 encroachers
(Karumariamman
Koil Street)
2 92 0.15.0 Eri 10 encroachers
(Koothalamman
Koil Street)
3 91/2 0.45.5 Defence land 40 encroahcers
(Koothalamman
Koil Street)
4 99/1 0.52.5 Arulmigu 40 encroachers
Koothalamman
Koil (patta)
5 191/3A 0.37.5 Village site 16 patta holders
(Muthumariamma
n Koil Street)
6 100 0.87.0 patta land 200 patta holders
7 101 1.08.0 patta land
However, the encroachers have been provided with basic
facilities such as Drinking Water, Electricity and Road by
the Chennai Corporation.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
19. In respect of the Nandampakkam village, the
details of encroachments are stated as under:-
S.No Survey No. Extract Classification No.of
Extension encroaches
3 94 0.60.5 Village site 37
4 96 1.08.5 Defence land No
encroachments
5 97/1 0.07.0 Defence land
6 97/2 0.11.0 Defence land
7 191/3A 0.37.5 Village site 16 patta
holders"
11. The paragraphs quoted above show the details of each
survey number with its nature, which did not include S.No.91/1A.
Rather, the land in S.No.91/2 is stated to be a defence land.
12. Yet, to create a confusion, an argument is raised by learned
counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had issued a
direction even for S.No.91/1A, though in the entire order passed by
the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reference to S.No.91/1A.
The aforesaid is one part and otherwise, the writ petition seems to
have been designed to maintain the encroachment in the defence land
and not to allow construction of the wall to protect the possession of
other encroachers, which may be even for S.No.96. The challenge to
the order passed by the first respondent in classifying the lands to be
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
Government poramboke lands was precisely to protect the
encroachment by others who have raised construction in the
Government land, for which, Notification was issued in the year 1987.
13. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that in all the
survey numbers indicating to be defence lands, a part has been
encroached and therefore, discussing the status of survey to the
extent required, the following directions were given :
"30. Regarding construction of compound wall by
the respondents 6 and 7 are concerned, the Advocate
Commissioner's report is unambiguous that construction
of compound wall would not cause any hindrance to the
people residing in that locality. In respect of the
encroachments of defence land, the Defence authorities
are empowered to remove the encroachments and
construct compound wall for the protection of defence
properties."
14. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the
appellant failed to establish his right to claim relief, as the relief sought
was not with reference to S.F.No.91/1A, but it is with regard to other
survey numbers notified as Government lands. The challenge was that
the lands should not have been classified as Government lands.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
15. Finding no ground, the prayer was not accepted by the
learned Single Judge and respondents 1 to 5 were directed to conduct
survey with reference to the Revenue records and thereupon remove
all the encroachments in the defence and government land by
following the procedure and provide alternate accommodation by
allotting tenements/land for the eligible poor and downtrodden people
under the Government Welfare Schemes. There is no direction for
eviction of those who are patta holders. The learned Single Judge, in
paragraph 28 of the order under challenge, observed that if any
individual claims title or ownership in respect of the lands, it is for the
said individual to approach the competent Civil Court. The said liberty
was given to those who do not have a clear title.
16. Taking into consideration the overall facts, we do not find
any reason to cause interference with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Rather, after discussing the arguments at length and
referring to the revenue records, just and appropriate directions were
given to protect the defence as well as the Government lands while
directing to extend the benefit of special schemes if the encroacher is a
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
poor or downtrodden person.
17. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. Since we
have dismissed the writ appeal, we direct respondents 1 to 5 to
execute the order under challenge expeditiously and action for that
purpose would be initiated within two weeks from today.
Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
30.3.2022
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Tahsildar, Alandur,
Chennai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai-45.
4.The Taluk Surveyor, Alandur
Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur,
Chennai.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
5.The Commissioner, Greater
Chennai Corporation,
Corporation Buildings,
Chennai-9.
6.The Estate Officer, Defence
Ministry, Fort St.George, Chennai.
7.The H Colonel, Officers Training
Academy, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai-16.
RS
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.765 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
RS
W.A.No.765 of 2022 &
CMP.No.5034 of 2022
30.3.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
