Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2096
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
Avudaiparvathi alias Sugana Devi & Another
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli & Others
Writ Petition (MD).No.10719 of 2007 & Writ Petition (MD).No.527 of 2008
Decided On: 11-04-2011
For the Petitioner:K. Srinivasan, Senior Counsel, R. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader, R3 - R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for R. Natesh Raja, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that possession of the land, as per the partition deed and revenue records, influenced the grant of patta and the right to establish title before the civil court.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Property Rights - Partition Deed, Revenue Records - [S.237, Partition Deed, Revenue Records] - The court discussed the ownership of the land in S.No.237 as per the partition deed and revenue records. The key legal provision of ownership and classification of land in revenue records influenced the court's decision in determining the possession and granting patta.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the ownership and classification of land in S.No.237, as per the partition deed and revenue records. The first respondent granted patta to the third respondent, claiming possession of the land, which was contested by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the land was with the third respondent and upheld the grant of patta. It also allowed the petitioner to establish her title before the competent civil court.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and classification of the land in S.No.237, the grant of patta, and the right to establish title before the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possession of the land was with the third respondent and allowed the petitioner to establish her title before the civil court, indicating that the findings of the first respondent did not preclude the decision of the civil court.
Final Decision: The writ petition W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 was disposed of, upholding the grant of patta to the third respondent and allowing the petitioner to approach the civil court to establish her title. Writ petition No.527 of 2008 was also disposed of, allowing the villagers to dispute the title of the third and fourth respondents before the civil court.
1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 is the daughter-in-law of one Tmt.Subbammal and the third respondent is the daughter of one Tmt.Guruvammal. Tmt.Subbammal and Tmt.Guruvammal are the daughters of one Thiru.Shanmugasundara Thevar. The land in Survey No.237 covering an extent of 10 cents, T.N.Pudhukudi Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District belong to Shanmugasundara Thevar by virtue of the sale deed, dated 15.09.1928. In the year 1959, a partition was entered into between the members of Thiru.Shanmugasundar Thevar by a partition deed, dated 30.03.1959 and the same was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Puliyangudi. The said document contains 11 Schedule.
2. According to the third respondent, 10 cents in S.No.237 mentioned in the 11th schedule was allotted to the father of the third respondent in the partition deed, who is the husband of Tmt.Guruvammal. According to the third respondent, while 10 cents is a private property, the same was also classified as 'Manthai Poramboke' in revenue records. According to her, while S.No.237 shows that 74 cents as 'Manthai Poramboke', the afore-said land of 10 cents forming part of the 74 cents is wrongly classified as 'Manthai Poramboke'.
3. The third respondent made representations to the first respondent to correct the error in the revenue records by correctly classifying her land as 'grama natham'. The first respondent directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct survey and find out the truthfulness of the complaint made by the third respondent. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer has conducted survey and submitted a report on 31.05.2005 stating that 10 cents in S.No.237 is a private land and it could not be classified under 'Manthai Poramboke'.
4. The first respondent also sought a report from the second respondent, the Tahsildar. The second respondent, the Tahsildar, after holding enquiry, he has also given a report to the first respondent endorsing the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer. That is, the second respondent also stated in his report that 10 cents in S.No.237, in Puliyangudi, Sivagiri Taluk is a private land.
5. While so, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007, gave objections to the first respondent not to grant exclusive patta to the third respondent and sought joint patta for the afore-said 10 cents in S.No.237. The first respondent heard the petitioner as well as the third respondent on the objections made by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2007 holding that 10 cents in S.No.237 is a private land and the third respondent has established the possession of the said land. In these circumstances, he directed the Tahsildar to grant patta in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner has filed the writ petition W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 to quash the afore-said order.
6. When the Government wanted to put up construction for a godown for agriculturists in the 'Manthai Poramboke', the same was objected in a representative capacity by one Muthiah Naicker and he filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1980 before the District Munsif, Sankarankovil for a declaration that land comprised in S.No.237 is 'Manthai Poramboke' and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the Collector and the Commissioner of Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union from constructing godown in S.No.237, which is a 'Manthai Poramboke'. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.84 of 1986 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi. The appeal was disposed of on 24.02.1990 holding that the construction was made only in 5 cents in 'Manthai Poramboke' and therefore, the villagers could use the rest of the land for grazing purposes. One Thiru.M.Pallayya Naicker filed W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008 to quash the afore-said order dated 11.09.2007 of the first respondent on the ground that the order of the first respondent is contrary to the order of the Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S.
