Madras High Court
K.Gunasekaran vs The District Collector on 5 September, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
WA.No.2587/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA.No.2587/2024
K.Gunasekaran ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Vellore District, Vellore.
2.The Tahsildar
Tahsildar's Office
Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against the
order dated 10.08.2023 passed in WP.No.6223/2023.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Ravindran, AAG
assisted by
Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl.GP
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2587/2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)The present writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 10.08.2023 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
in WP.No.6223/2023 filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to quash the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the 2 nd
respondent/Tahsildar and to direct the respondents to issue patta in favour
of the appellant/writ petitioner.
(2)In support of the prayer in the writ petition, the appellant filed an
affidavit wherein he has stated as follows:-
(a) The appellant / writ petitioner belongs to Arundadiyar community
which is a Scheduled Caste community. From the year 1985, the
appellant's family has been in possession and enjoyment of an
extent of 4.02 acres of Punja land in S.No.331 in Aayagoundanur
Village in Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. The said land is
classified as ''Government Poramboke'' land. In the year 1989, one
Rathina Gounder and his family members tried to interfere with
their possession and the appellant along with his mother and elder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brother filed a suit in OS.No.348/1989 before the District Munsif
Court, Gudiyatham, for a permanent injunction as against the said
individuals who were trying to disturb their possession.
Simultaneously, one Manickam and the said Rathina Gounder filed
a civil suit in OS.No.360/1989 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Gudiyatham as against the writ petitioner and his brother for
declaration of their title in respect of the said lands claiming title
by adverse possession and for consequential permanent injunction.
Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment
dated 31.01.1994, the suit in OS.No.348/1989 was decreed in
favour of the appellant herein and his family members and the suit
in OS.No.360/1989 was dismissed in entirety. Though appeals in
AS.Nos.108 and 109/1994 were filed before the Sub Court,
Vellore, by the said Rathinam, Manickam and others against the
appellant and his family members, the appeals were also dismissed
by a common judgment and decree dated 27.09.2001 and the
decree as against the appellant's rivals has attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b)Though the appellant was issued with B-Memo from 1985, the
appellant's family members were not issued with B-Memo after the
suit filed by them was decreed in their favour. Since the appellant
is continuously in possession of the lands to an extent of 4.02 acres
without any let or hindrance from anybody and they have no other
lands to eke out their livelihood, a representation was submitted by
the appellant before the respondents 1 and 2 earlier and a reply
was given to the appellant to the effect that the representation of
the appellant could be considered after the civil suit is over. The
appellant's brother by name Manidurai died on 12.02.2015 and his
mother also passed away on 13.05.2016. Therefore, the appellant
submitted another representation on 15.07.2022 for grant of patta
[assignment] in his favour in respect of the very same land.
Though the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community
and the lands are being earmarked as Depressed Class land, the 2 nd
respondent rejected the representation submitted by the appellant
for assignment of land in his favour vide impugned order dated
30.12.2022 on the ground that the lands in which the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in enjoyment and the adjoining lands are included in the
Prohibitive Order Book and reserved for the purpose of Karigiri
Leprosy Hospital. The above writ petition is therefore, filed
challenging the order of the 2nd respondent / Tahsildar, rejecting the
representation of the appellant for grant of assignment on the
ground that the lands have been earmarked in the Prohibitive
Order Book for the purpose of construction of a Leprosy Hospital.
(c) The impugned order was challenged mainly on the ground that the
land is specifically earmarked as Depressed Class land and the
impugned order is in gross violation of Revenue Standing Orders,
particularly, RSO 15[2][2]. Before the learned Single Judge it was
contended that the land reserved for Scheduled Caste community
need not be entered in the Prohibitive Order Book and hence, the
reason for rejection is unsustainable in law.
(d)The judgments and decrees of the Civil Court both in the suit as
well as in the appeals, which was between the appellant and a few
private persons was also focussed before the learned Single Judge.
Taking note of the fact that a portion of the land has been reserved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for Depressed Class people who are landless and economically
poor, the learned Judge justified the order impugned in the writ
petition and held that the land which is required for future specific
purpose and which is also entered in the Taluk and Village
Prohibitive Order Book, cannot be assigned in favour of the
appellant/writ petitioner. After finding that the lands which are in
the encroachment of private individuals is held to be objectionable,
the learned Judge further held that assignment of land and
issuance of patta cannot be claimed as a matter or right. The
learned Judge, finally held that the appellant cannot occupy
Government property and claim patta or assignment free of cost
merely because there is a provision enabling the respondents to
consider certain encroachment for regularisation and for
assignment. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single
Judge, the present writ appeal is preferred.
(3)The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon RSO 15,
submitted that the land which is in the occupation of the appellant, has to
be assigned in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel pointed out that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the land is classified as land reserved as per RSO 15[2][2] for Depressed
Classes and therefore, the inclusion of land in the Prohibitive Order Book
is a clear violation and hence, the impugned order challenged in the writ
petition is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted
that the respondents have admitted in their counter affidavit that the land
was originally classified as grazing poramboke as per Resurvey and Re-
settlement Register prepared in the year 1910 and that the same was
subsequently assessed as 'waste dry land' and reserved for Depressed
Class. Since the respondents admit that lands are reserved for Depressed
Class, the appellant is entitled to assignment.
(4)Learned counsel contended that the lands which are reserved for special
purposes need not be entered in the Prohibitive Order Book as such lands
are meant to be assigned in favour of Depressed Class. He further
contended that such a land cannot be entered in the Prohibitive Order
Book so as to allot the said land for construction of a Leprosy Hospital.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant who belongs to Scheduled
Caste community, is fully eligible for assignment of land, especially when
he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the respondents as
well as the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ
petition, failed to consider the judgments and decrees in the two suits in
OS.Nos.348 and 360/1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Gudiyatham.
(5)This Court is unable to countenance any of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
(6)From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition, it
is seen that the lands in S.No.331 in respect of which the appellant seeks
assignment and the adjoining survey fields were originally classified as
grazing ground poramboke as per Re-survey and Re-settlement Register,
1910. Even though the lands were subsequently reclassified as assessed
waste dry lands, the details of such reclassification is not given. A land
which is classified as grazing ground poramboke is a communal land and
vests with the Government. Not even a claim for ryotwari patta can be
entertained. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that some portion of the
fields were reserved for Depressed Class people for assignment based on
their status and the land which is originally classified as grazing ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
poramboke as per Resettlement Register prepared in 1910, cannot be
reserved for assignment, as grazing lands cannot be treated as the
absolute property of Government at their disposal. Under the Doctrine of
Public Trust, the Government is expected to keep such communal lands
for the benefit of community as a whole.
(7)It is also to be noted that the respondents in their counter affidavit, has
categorically stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.3076, Health Department
dated 30.10.1952, the property in S.No.331, in Aayagoundanur Village,
Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, was entered in the Taluk and Village
Prohibitive Order Book for future requirement particularly for a specific
public purpose. When the lands were entered in the Taluk and Village
Prohibitive Order Book, the same cannot be assigned in favour of any
individual. It is also to be noted that the appellant is aged about 80 years
and his two sons and daughter are living separately in Chennai and in the
nearby places. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the appellant
shifted to a different village known as 'Adukkamparai' Village in Vellore
Taluk. It is further stated that by virtue of the judgments and decrees in
the two suits in OS.Nos.348 and 360 of 1989, the appellant is in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
possession of land through somebody who is in physical possession. The
Revenue Standing Orders are nothing but executive instructions reflecting
the policy of the Government. Merely because the appellant belongs to a
Depressed Class, he is not entitled to assignment of land. The appellant is
not an agriculturist or a farmer. Merely because he is in possession of a
Government poramboke land, that does not confer any right in favour of
the appellant to seek assignment. When a classification of the land as
grazing ground poramboke as per the old survey records is admitted, not
even the Government can deal with the property in view of the well
established principles.
(8)The Government has entered the land in the Prohibitive Order Book so
that this will not be assigned to anyone and it is meant to be used for
public purpose. When the appellant has no vested right and he is just an
encroacher, he cannot, as a matter of right, expect a direction from this
Court to assign the land in his favour. Even in the suit filed by the
appellant before the Civil Court, a revenue official was examined whose
evidence is recorded in the judgment and decree of the District Munsif
Court, Gudiyatham in OS.Nos.348 and 360 of 1989. From the common
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment, it is seen that the appellant has specifically pleaded that the
land was reserved for Depressed Class people and it was classified as
Poramboke [Anadeenam]. Except the fact that the appellant and his
family were doing cultivation and issuance of B-Memo, the appellant
contended that the property cannot be assigned in favour of people belong
to other class. The appellant has not referred to any document to show
their possession for grant of Ryotwari patta. It is contended before the
Civil Court that the appellant who is in possession, was at liberty to get
patta whereas the defendants who are very rich, cannot seek assignment
and therefore, the suit was held in favour of the appellant and his family
members.
(9)The Civil Court came to the conclusion that the land was reserved for
Depressed Class people without any document being marked. It is seen
from the judgment that both sides before the Civil Court have produced B-
Memo issued by the Revenue Officials. The rival parties though filed
several documents, their claim in the said suit was rejected mainly
because the land has been classified as Depressed Class land. The
appellant cannot take advantage of the suit filed by him as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
third party as none of the respondents herein are parties to the civil suits.
Even before the Civil Court, the appellant and his family members
categorically admit the character of the suit property as the property of the
Government. Merely because the appellant can file an application for
assignment in view of RSO 15, that does not mean that the respondents
are obliged to grant patta recognising the enjoyment of the appellant for a
considerable period. When the land itself was included in the Prohibitive
Order Book as admitted by both sides, it can be taken that no assignment
is permissible and that the land is reserved for a public purpose. The
appellant produced revenue records namely Adangal for Fasli 1432
[2022] to show that the land has been classified as Punja Anadeenam.
The classification of land as Anadeenam also indicate that the land is not
in the exclusive possession of anyone. Though the land is shown under
cultivation with reference to a portion of land, i.e., 20 ares [about 49
cents], there is no indication that the land is under cultivation by the
appellant or his family members. When the appellant seeks assignment in
respect of an extent of 4.02 acres, the extent of cultivation gives a clear
indication that the appellant has approached this Court without sufficient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records to show his physical possession and enjoyment of the land in
question. The appellant who has encroached the public land, cannot be
shown any indulgence merely because he belongs to Depressed Class.
(10)As pointed out earlier, the Revenue Standing Orders are just
administrative instructions and that does not confer any right. When the
Government has taken a policy decision about 70 years back, not to
assign the land and to include the land in Prohibitive Order Book, the
appellant who has encroached the land in the year 1985, cannot claim
assignment merely because he belong to Depressed Class. The entries in
revenue records is not supported by proceedings of competent authorities.
(11)There is no scope for assignment if the land is originally classified as
Grazing land. Even though the land is classified as Government
Poramboke, the land classified as grazing land shows that the land is a
communal land and the Government is under obligation to keep the land
for grazing animals. Even otherwise, RSO 15 only enables the Tahsildar
to consider the land for assignment if the enjoyment of such persons
seeking assignment, is objectionable and such assignment should also
satisfy other conditions and reservations in the Revenue Standing Orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(12)For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ
appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Though this Court was inclined to
impose exemplary cost for want of bona fides and suppression of material
facts, this Court, taking note of the age of the appellant, is inclined to
dismiss the writ appeal without cost. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
05.09.2024
AP
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The District Collector
Vellore District, Vellore.
2.The Tahsildar
Tahsildar's Office
Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AP
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
