Madras High Court
Periyammal vs The District Collector on 11 March, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.4119 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD) No.4119 of 2025
Periyammal ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Singampunari Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Taluk Surveyor,
Singampunari,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to survey the land
and fix the boundaries and further directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to
issue patta or mutating the revenue records in favour of the petitioner in respect of
S.Nos.128/1 and 45/1 situated at M.Kovilpatti Village, Singampunari Taluk,
Sivagangai District and consider the representation dated 02.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
1/6
W.P.(MD) No.4119 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus to survey the lands, fix boundaries and also issue patta to the
petitioner.The petitioner has sought for issuance of patta by making an
application on 02.01.2025
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was constrained to move the competent civil Court in O.S.No.114 of 2000,
namely, the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur. The suit was initially dismissed
against the plaintiff, as against which, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.36 of 2024
and the First Appellate Court, ie., the Sub Court, Sivagangai, reversed the
Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The State challenged
the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, preferred S.A.(MD)No.855
of 2025 before this Court. However, by Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2024,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
the second appeal was dismissed, holding that the writ petitioner's possession for
thirty years had been established by the petitioner. Based on the said Judgment
and Decree, the petitioner now seeks for issuance of patta after survey to be
conducted.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that no doubt the
Judgment and Decree of this Court became final and the State has not taken up
the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the revenue records
reflect S.No.128/1, the Government poromboke kalam and S.No.45/1 as 'kanmai,'
namely, a water body and therefore, he would submit that when this Court had
also specifically found that the petitioner had failed to establish his title over the
subject lands, patta cannot be issued to the petitioner. He would, therefore, seek
for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in the
absence of survey, the third parties are attempting to interfere with the petitioner's
peaceful possession and enjoyment, which has been rightly protected by this
Court in S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2005 by Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
6.I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on
either side.
7.No doubt the petitioner's possession has been protected and permanent
injunction has been granted and confirmed by this Court in the second appeal
proceedings, the same has also become final. On going through the Judgement
passed by this Court in the second appeal, it is clear that the relief of permanent
injunction has been granted only on the strength of the petitioner's having proved
possession and enjoyment of the subject lands for over 30 years. In fact, this
Court also observed that even a trespasser's possession has to be protected and he
can be dispossessed only in a manner known to law. Further, this Court has also
held that the petitioner had failed to prove his title, but only established the
factum of physical possession. Therefore, in view of the categorical findings
rendered by this Court, which are equally binding on the petitioner as well, the
petitioner is not entitled to issuance of patta. However, at the same time, the
request for survey cannot be rejected when, admittedly, his possession has been
upheld by this Court in the second appeal proceedings.
8.At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit
that the Judgment of this Court in S.A(MD)No.855 of 2005 was pronounced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
recently and the State may still take a call on whether the same should be
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Anyhow, that would not come in the
way of survey being conducted even in the present situation on ground.
9.Therefore, the Writ Petition is partly allowed with a direction to the
respondents 2 and 3 to conduct a survey of the petitioner's lands and fix the four
boundaries. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
11.03.2025
sji
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Singampunari Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Taluk Surveyor,
Singampunari,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 02:46:55 pm )
