Madras High Court
R.Chellappan vs / on 24 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.28550 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.28550 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.24207 of 2024
R.Chellappan ... Petitioner
/Vs./
The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kalkulam,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record on the file
of the respondent pertaining to its impugned order in Roc
No.B3/2027/2023 dated 26.02.2024 and to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent of carry out necessary corrections in
the revenue records pertinent to petitioner property in Old survey No.
3688/496 and 497 bearing resurvey number 480/38 and 33 admeasuring
21 cents of Eraniel Village Kanyakumari District and in Old Survey
number 7919 M1 M2 Corresponding Re-survey number 555/2 5
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.28550 of 2024
admeasuring 23 cents and the properties in old survey number 7920-B
corresponding Re-survey number 556/8, 10 admeasuring 4 cents of
Thalakulam Village, Kanyakumari District, in the light of the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.103 of 1995 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, Eraniel and the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.
41 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2023 within a time
frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the impugned order of rejection of the
petitioner's patta, by order dated 26.02.2024.
2. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
3. The only ground on which the impugned order appears to be
passed is the subject survey number is classified as 'water body'.
Unfortunately, the respondent has not taken note of the decree passed in
O.S.No.103 of 1995, partly decreeing the suit for declaration and for
correction in the revenue records in O.S.No.103 of 1995, by judgment
decree dated 29.04.2004. As against the disallowed portion alone, the
petitioner preferred an Appeal in A.S.No. 41 of 2008, which also came to
be allowed in favour of the petitioner by the judgment decree dated
24.08.2011. Admittedly, the statutory respondents, who are cited as
defendants in the suit and respondents in the appeal, have not chosen to
challenge the judgment and decree either in the suit or in the appeal.
However, it is brought to my notice that after a long period of delay, with
an application to condone delay, the second appeal has been preferred by
the respondent.
4. In my considered opinion that the said second appeal filed
belatedly cannot come in the way of the petitioner being entitled to patta,
when there is a categorical finding of a competent Civil Court that the
petitioner is the owner of the subject land. If at all, the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
succeeds in getting the delay condoned in filing the second appeal and
thereafter succeeds in second appeal on merits, then it may be open to the
respondent to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any correction
or issue of patta. As on date the respondents cannot refuse patta citing the
very same defence that was taken in the suit that the subject lands are
classified as 'water body'. Further, I also find that this Court by order
dated 18.04.2023, in W.P.(MD)No.8823 of 2023, had specifically
directed the fourth respondent therein, namely, that is the respondent in
this writ petition, to examine the Court decree of the trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court and thereafter pass orders in a manner known to
law.
5. On going through the impugned order, I do not find any
discussion with regard to the two decrees passed by the trial Court and
the Appellate Court. Therefore, for all these reasons, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
6. In fine, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
respondent for re-considering the application of the petitioner, for
issuance of patta, based on the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court and modified in favour of the petitioner in A.S.No.41 of 2008.
However, since it is brought to my notice that the land being classified as
'water body' competent authority, viz., the Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai, would have to give approval or consent, it is
for the respondent / Tashildar to get appropriate orders from the said
Commissioner of Land Administration and the petitioner being armed
with the decree cannot be driven from pillar to post. In the light of the
above, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent shall obtain
necessary sanction / No objection from the Commissioner of Land
Administration, citing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103 of
1995 and modified in A.S.No.41 of 2008 and thereafter issue patta to the
petitioner within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 24.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
TO:-
The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kalkulam,
Kanyakumari District.
Copy to
The Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA)
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600005
Order made in
Dated:
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:46:09 pm )
