Madras High Court
The District Collector vs G.K.Ramakrishnan on 25 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD).No.1736 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD).No.1736 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.13277 of 2023
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants
-vs-
1.G.K.Ramakrishnan
2.N.Somasundaram ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15042 of 2022, dated
08.08.2022.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.A.(MD).No.1736 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For 1st Respondent : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For 2nd Respondent : Ms.Porkodi Karnam
For M/s.Polax Legal Solution
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel takes notice for the 1st
respondent. Mr.Porkodi Karnam, learned counsel takes notice for the 2nd
respondent.
2.The Mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge, directing the
respondents 3 and 4 to process the application for grant of patta and
forward the same to the competent authority, namely, the respondents 1
and 2 and further direction issued to the competent authority to issue
patta in favour of the 1st respondent herein, is subject matter of challenge.
3.It is the claim of the 1st respondent that the land in question,
which is classified as natham was possessed and occupied by one
Subramaniya Iyer and when he left the village, he dedicated the property to
his community. Thereafter, the building situated therein was used for
performance of the last rites and since the building become dilapidated,
the first respondent sought for permission to put up a new structure. Such
permission was granted in the year 2003 on the heirs of the original owner
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Subramaniya Iyer, submitting a document conveying their no objection for
grant of permission and a construction has also been put up. In the
interregnum, the 2nd respondent claimed to have purchased the property
from the power agent of one of the heirs of the original owner Subramaniya
Iyer in the year 2005 and attempted to interfere with the possession of the
1st respondent. The validity of the said sale deed was challenged and the
registration authority found that the document is a forged document. Since
the request of the petitioner for grant of patta was not considered, the
petitioner sought for Mandamus, which was ordered as above.
4.Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government Pleader
would contend that the revenue records do not show that the property was
possessed by Subramaniya Iyer and therefore, the land being classified as
natham vacant land in the revenue records, patta cannot be granted. Two
documents, one of the year 1954 and another of the year 1964 have been
produced by the 1st respondent, which show that there was a construction
in the said land made by Subramaniya Iyer. Subsequently, the 1 st
respondent has been granted permission to put up construction and the
said construction has been assessed to property tax.
5.It is therefore, clear that the land in question always remained as
occupied natham and the claim for grant of patta is not for benefit of any
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
individual but for benefit of a community and that too, for providing a
place for performing last rites of departed persons. The Writ Court had
taken into account the entire facts and had held that the 1st respondent
has been in possession of the property right through and the lan d having
been classified as natham cannot be treated as objectionable
encroachment also. Therefore, we are unable to fault the Writ Court for
having issued the directions has found in the order.
6.Hence, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. The
authorities will comply with the direction of the Writ Court within a period
of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
25.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Mrn
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
25.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
