Madras High Court
A.Venkatachalam vs The Additional Chief Secretary/ on 1 June, 2023
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 1.6.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.18346 of 2021
A.Venkatachalam ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Municipal Corporation,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents/Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed in W.P.No.17954 of 2014 dated 06.10.2017 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,
Sr. Counsel for M/s.P.Veena Suresh
For Respondent No.1: Mr.P.Gurunathan, A.G.P.
For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.Magesh
Standing Counsel
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
The prayer as sought for in the writ petition is to direct the
respondents to remove the dumped sand from the property comprised in
S.No.463/3A and 463/3B in between Meena Estate and Sanganur Channel in
Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore Taluk.
2. The Writ Court while dismissing the writ petition has held as
follows:
''13. From the above extracted portion of the
impugned order, it is clear that the first respondent has
observed that there should be removal of slush in the
disputed land and with regard to the entries made in RSR,
the appeal is confined only to the extent of the land in
question. As per the Old Settlement Register of
Ramanathapuram Village of Coimbatore Taluk, published in
the year 1879, S.Nos.463/A and 463/C were classified as
Government Dry and registered in the names of
Thiru.P.Rangasami Nayakkan and 8 others under patta
No.449 B. S.No.463/B with an extent of 0.76 acre was
classified as "Government Poramboke" and recorded as
Odai in O.S.R., which correlated to T.S.No.1107/2 and again
classified as "Government Poramboke Vari". T.S.No.1107/2
classified as "Government Vari Poramboke" has been
correlated to T.S.No.7316 and classified as "Government
Vari Poramboke". It has been further observed in the
impugned order that the land does not belong to
Corporation. But there is a dispute that the land does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
belong to the petitioner, but described as Poramboke and it
was further stated that the petitioner is not in possession of
the disputed possession of land. The authority in the
impugned order has come to the conclusion that as the
petitioner did not prove the physical possession, and that
there are records to show that it is only a dry land, and that
the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that the
predecessor-in-title was in actual possession and enjoyment
of the property in question, the decision taken in the interest
of public, which may be detrimental to them, cannot be
entertained.
14. According to the learned counsel for the second
respondent, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and
only civil suit is maintainable. There is no admission that the
land in question belongs to the petitioner and that the land
belongs to the Municipality, which is now a Corporation. It
is the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the
second respondent that the land in question in this Writ
Petition is a river bund and that in the approved lay out
plan, the continuation of Southern portion of the property
said to have been purchased by the petitioner, was clearly
marked as a 'bund'. Knowing very well that it is a river bund,
the petitioner has purchased the property on 23.04.2008.
15. Further, since S.No.463/B is Odai, as borne out of
records, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and he has
not sought any relief with regard to S.No.463/C. As far as
S.No.463/A is concerned, it is classified as Dry land
belonging to the Government, as established by the
respondents. As far as No.463/B is concerned, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
petitioner is the owner of the land, and has got any
grievance, it is open for him to establish his title before the
appropriate Civil forum by making necessary and proper
parties as the defence therein.
3. Challenging the said order passed by the Writ Court, the writ
petitioner has filed the instant appeal as against the dismissal of the writ
petition.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the Writ Court has failed to consider the case of the petitioner that the
property comprised in S.No.463/3A and 463/3B belongs to the appellant/
petitioner. The Writ Court has not appreciated the case of the petitioner in
proper perspective and dismissed the writ petition by holding that the
property in question is odai poramboke and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief and dismissed the writ petition.
6. Pending appeal, the appellant has filed C.M.P.No.18346 of
2021 for amending the prayer in Writ petition by including T.S.No.7317 in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
place of S.No.463/3A and 463/3B by stating that the Tahsildar has identified
the petitioner's property as T.S.No.7317 and therefore, seeks to incorporate
T.S.No.7317 in the place of S.No.463/3A and 463/3B. Since the appellant
himself is not clear about the description of the property, the appellant
cannot be permitted to amend the prayer in the writ petition. The writ
petitioner has now taken a different version that the property situated in
S.No.463/3A and 463/3B is not a subject matter of the writ petition.
7. As pointed out by the respondent that the property comprised
in S.No.463/A and 463/B is odai poramboke which according to the respondent
is under the control of the Public Works department, the petitioner has not
taken any steps to implead Public Works department as party in the writ
petition. Further, the appellant is not sure regarding description of the
property, now seeks to amend the prayer in the writ petition by contending
that the Tahsildar has identified the petitioner's property as T.S.No.7317, we
are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant/petitioner. The appellant
has to establish his ownership right before the appropriate Civil forum on
account of the disputed fact. Such view of the matter, as rightly pointed out
by the Writ Court, the appellant has to establish his title before the
appropriate Civil forum. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the
Writ Court is perfectly valid and no warrants to interfere with the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
8 Consequently, writ appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
(D.K.K.J. ) (P.D.B.J.)
1.6.2023
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes
vaan
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
vaan
W.A.No.1947 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.18346 of 2021
Dated: 1.6.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
