Madras High Court
S.John Peter vs The District Collector on 22 September, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.20410 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14796 of 2022
S.John Peter .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul. .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 18.07.2022 and not to interfere with the
property rights of the petitioner in Old T.S.No.1364/2, corresponding to New
T.S.No.1364/53, measuring an extent of 2000 sq.ft. of land and building,
situated at Dindigul Town.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
ORDER
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct
the respondents to consider his representation, dated 18.07.2022 and not to
interfere with his property rights in Old T.S.No.1364/2, corresponding to New
T.S.No.1364/53, measuring an extent of 2000 sq.ft. of land and building,
situated at Dindigul Town.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner's grandfather namely, Vethamuthu has purchased 1000 sq.ft. of
vacant house site, comprised in T.S.No.1364/2, situated at Chettinaickkanpatti
Village, Dindigul Town, from one Alagarsamy Naidu, through a sale deed
dated 10.02.1939. Subsequently, the petitioner's grandfather once again
purchased 1000 sq.ft. of vacant site abutting the earlier plot, comprised in
T.S.No.1364/2, from the said Alagarsamy Naidu, through a sale deed dated
03.05.1945. The petitioner's grandfather was in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of 2000 sq.ft. of housing plot, wherein he constructed a tiled house
and residing therein. Subsequently, the Settlement Tahsildar No.1, Madurai,
conducted elaborate enquiry and passed the proceedings, dated 28.06.1973,
stating that the petitioner's father namely, Siluvaimuthu is entitled for Patta for
the above said Plots. Hence, the Assistant Settlement Officer, issued Patta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
bearing No.84, in favour of the petitioner's father for the housing plots,
situated in T.S.No.1364/24. While granting Patta in favour of the petitioner's
father Siluvaimuthu, T.S.No.1364/2 was sub-divided into several survey
numbers and the petitioner's father was issued with a Settlement Patta for the
housing plots in T.S.No.1364/24. However, the third respondent's officials
have made mutations in the Town Survey Register as T.S.No.1364/53 instead
of T.S.No.1364/24. Even though the petitioner has made repeated attempts to
correct the same, so far, he is not in a position to ascertain whether the
correction has been carried out or not.
3.The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's father
obtained water connection for the house situated in T.S.No.1364/53. The
petitioner is regularly paying the electricity charges for the dwelling house.
While so, the third respondent in a high-handed manner, tried to lay a road in
the petitioner's Patta land during the year 2010 as if the property is a
Government Poromboke land. The petitioner made efforts to prevent the same
and filed a suit for permanent injunction against the third respondent in
O.S.No.348 of 2010, before the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul,
which was dismissed on 13.03.2017, against which, the petitioner preferred
A.S.No.54 of 2017 before the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul and the same is
pending. The petitioner made several representations to the authorities to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
restrain the third respondent from laying of road in his Patta land. Taking
advantage of the dismissal of the suit, the third respondent is trying to put up
road in the petitioner's Patta land, which is a dwelling house. If the same is
allowed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition
for the relief stated supra.
4.The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that T.S.No.
1364/53 stands in the name of the petitioner's father. However, the extent of
land is only 0.0163.0 sq.mt. [1753.88 sq.ft.] and not 2000 sq.ft. as claimed by
the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner's father was issued with Ryotwari
Patta for the land in T.S.No.1364/24. The third respondent denied the
averment made by the petitioner with regard to the wrong mutation in the
Town Survey Register as T.S.No.1364/53 instead of 1364/24. The above said
survey numbers are separate from each other and T.S.No.1364/24 is not at all
mutated into T.S.No.1364/53. As on date, the Town Survey Register for
T.S.No.1364/24 reflects the names of Arockiyadoss, Jeyaseelan, Salamon
Saviour and Joseph Selvaraj, who are all the sons of one David and it is
admitted that the Town Survey Register for T.S.No.1364/53, measuring an
extent of 0.0163.0 sq.mt. in Dindigul Town reflects the name of the petitioner's
father Siluvaimuthu. The entire change of survey numbers and extent is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
vested with the third respondent. It is only executed by the Revenue
Department and Survey Department. Further, it is not correct to state that the
third respondent has high-handedly tried to lay the road in the Patta land of the
petitioner. The third respondent has no concern about the petitioner's
possession in T.S.No.1364/53. The third respondent will not interfere with the
possession of the petitioner in T.S.No.1364/53. It is pertinent to mention that
the Town Survey Register reflects the name of the third respondent for T.S.No.
1364/49 and the encroachment made by the petitioner in T.S.No.1364/49 was
properly removed by the third respondent after giving notice to him.
Thereafter, once again the petitioner has also made an encroachment in
T.S.No.1364/49 by putting up a Thar sheet, measuring an extent of 58 sq.mt.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side, it is seen that as per Town Survey Register, the extent
of T.S.No.1364/53 is only 1753.88 sq.ft., and not 2000 sq.ft. Further, T.S.No.
1364/49 is classified as Road as found in the judgment and decree, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
13.03.2017, made in O.S.No.348 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Dindigul. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the
petitioner filed A.S.No.54 of 2017 before the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul,
and the same is pending. The third respondent has stated that the petitioner is
entitled only for 1753.88 sq.ft. in T.S.No.1364/53 and he will not disturb the
petitioner's possession in the said survey number. In respect of T.S.No.
1364/49, the third respondent's name is found in the Town Survey Register
and therefore, they have every right to remove the encroachment in the said
survey number as per law after issuing notice to the petitioner.
7.With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 22.09.2022
To
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20410 of 2022
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.20410 of 2022
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
