Madras High Court
N.Ramachandran vs D.Yasodhai Ammal on 27 July, 2023
WA No.2403 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.2403 of 2022
N.Ramachandran : Appellant
versus
1.D.Yasodhai Ammal
2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
(Land Administration),
Chepauk, Chennai
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruvannamalai 606 601
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai 606 601
5.The Tahsildar,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk Office,
Now Kilpennathur Taluk,
Kilpennathur 604 601
Tiruvannamalai : Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.04.2013 in WP No.14670 of 2003.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.N.R.S.Ganesan
For the Respondents : Mr.M.S.Krishnan,
Senior Counsel,
for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia,
for the first respondent
Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader,
for respondents 2 to 5.
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.N.R.S.Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and
Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, for respondents 2 to 5.
2. The appellant assails the order of the learned Single Judge passed in
WP No.14670 of 2003. The present respondent No.1 had filed a writ petition
thereby challenging the orders passed by the authorities cancelling the
assignment. The learned Single Judge observed that it would not be
appropriate to cancel the assignment after nine years and further observed
that the Tahsildar shall make inspection of the land in question in order to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
ascertain the status of the land and after hearing the objections from the
petitioner and other persons concerned, to pass suitable orders by providing
pathway in 6 feet.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant if the learned
Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ land is a pathway, then, no
question arises of limiting the width of the pathway; whereas, learned Senior
Counsel for the first respondent submits that the ‘A’ register clearly records
the writ land as a dry land. The same was rightly assigned. The alleged
pathway was created and that is also reflected in the submissions of the
present appellant before the authority i.e. the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner (Land Administration), Chepauk, Chennai, and the same is
reproduced in its order dated 03.04.2003.
4. It does not appear that the learned Single Judge has considered all
the contentions while observing that the land in question is a pathway
available for eight dwelling houses. A specific finding will have to be arrived in
respect of the nature of the property i.e. whether it was a pathway or a dry
land. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that the adjoining persons should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
have some pathway for ingress and egress and cultivating the land.
5. In the light of the above, we pass the following order:
“(i) The impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge and the order passed by the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner (Land
Administration), Chepauk, Chennai, dated
03.04.2003 are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner (Land
Administration), Chepauk, Chennai. The Special
Commissioner shall reconsider the contentions of
the present appellant and the present respondent
No.1, so also consider the entire records as may be
produced by the respective parties and arrive at a
fresh conclusion as to the nature of the property
and the legality of the assignment in favour of the
present respondent No.1/original writ petitioner.
(iii) If the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner (Land Administration), Chepauk,
Chennai, comes to the conclusion that the writ land
since beginning is a pathway, then, no further
question arises. However, if the Authority comes to
the conclusion that the writ land was a dry land and
was legally assigned to the present respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
No.1/ writ petitioner, he shall further make
suitable orders with regard to the grant of pathway
to the villagers, i.e., eight dwelling houses for the
purpose of ingress, egress and cultivation, if it is so
shown to him.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner (Land
Administration), Chepauk, Chennai, on August 7,
2023.
(v) The writ appeal is accordingly disposed
of. There will be no order as to costs.”
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
27.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
To
1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
(Land Administration), Chepauk, Chennai
2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai
4.The Tahsildar,
Kilpennathur Taluk,
Kilpennathur 604 601
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
Tiruvannamalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2403 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WA No.2403 of 2022
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
