Madras High Court
V.Ganesan vs The Additional Chief Secretary And on 7 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1155 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.1155 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9064 of 2022
V.Ganesan ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
5.R.S.Padma ... Respondents /
Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 07:14:16 pm )
1/5
W.A.(MD)No.1155 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order made in W.P(MD)No.5791 of 2016 dated 05.08.2022 and to
allow the above writ appeal by way of granting the relief sought for in
the writ petition.
For Appellant : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi
For Respondents : Ms.P.B.Ahamed Yasmin Parvin
Government Advocate
for R.1 to R.4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The appellant sought patta in respect of Survey Nos.588/4 and
588/6 measuring an extent of 45 cents and 18 cents respectively situated
at Thangachimadam Village. The petitioner's request was rejected by the
first respondent vide proceedings dated 30.11.2015. Challenging the
same, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.5791 of 2016. The writ petition
was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2022. Challenging the same, this
Writ Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 07:14:16 pm )
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Writ Appeal. He
pointed out that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser through a
registered document and that therefore the impugned orders deserve to be
set aside.
4.We are not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Advocate, Survey No.588/4 has been classified as “Oorani
(water body)” during UDR. Even prior to UDR, it did not stand in the
name of any individual. It is well settled that patta cannot be issued in
respect of a water body. As far as Survey No.588/6 is concerned, the
appellant's vendor had already donated the property to the Educational
Department on 17.03.1965 through a registered document (Document
No.56/1965). That is why the learned Judge rightly held that when the
appellant's vendor sold the property on 23.11.1992, she had no title
whatsoever. The learned single Judge had correctly approached the issue
and interference with the said order is not warranted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 07:14:16 pm )
5.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
07.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 07:14:16 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 07:14:16 pm )
