Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, M. SATHYANARAYANAN & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
A. Muniappan & Others
Versus
The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram & Others
W.A.No.309 of 2009 & W.P.No.13941 of 2009
Decided On : 19-08-2014
LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT - APPLICABILITY TO PATTA LAND - EARLIER ORDERS OF DIVISION BENCH - CONCLUSIVE DECISION - PROVISIONS OF ACT - INTERPRETATION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The Burma Indian Co-operative House Construction Society Limited purchased land in Palavakkam village, Saidapet Taluk, and allowed Srilankan refugees to temporarily reside on the land. Local people also encroached on the land. The Society filed a writ petition seeking a direction to remove the encroachers. The District Collector passed an order stating that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the land as it was patta land. The Society filed another writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court holding that the dispute appeared to be of rival dispute, which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Society filed a writ appeal, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court directing the District Collector to consider the representation of the Society and pass orders within a period of two months. The District Collector, pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench, directed the Tahsildar to verify and find out the encroachments in the lands belonging to the Society and file a report. The Tahsildar was ordered to assign 0.5 acre (1.5 cents) of land at Vengambakkam village for each of the families of the Srilankan Tamil repatriates, who have been temporarily accommodated at the site belonging to Burma Indian Co-operative House Construction Society Limited and resettle at Vengambakkam village along with those who were already settled there. The Residents' Welfare Association (occupants) filed writ petitions challenging the notices issued by the Tahsildar. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the encroachers have lost the battle in several rounds of litigation, from the year 1991, both before the High Court as well as in the Civil Court. The aggrieved persons filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed. The individual members of the Association subsequently challenged the notices issued in writ petitions, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeals were filed and reference was made in the said writ appeal as stated supra.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the earlier orders of the Division Bench in the given case between the Society and encroachers have conclusively decided the rights of the parties and they are not entitled to plead that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, cannot be applied for evicting them from the encroached area. The High Court also held that eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be initiated and completed with regard to the land belonging to the Government and not in respect of patta lands.
Issues: 1. Whether the earlier orders of the Division Bench in the given case have conclusively decided the issue of applicability of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to patta land ? 2. If not, whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act can be made applicable even to patta land ?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was enacted for the purpose of evicting the encroachers from the Government land. The Act was not applicable to patta lands. The earlier orders of the Division Bench in the given case between the Society and encroachers have conclusively decided the rights of the parties and they are not entitled to plead that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, cannot be applied for evicting them from the encroached area.
Final Decision: The High Court answered the questions referred to it as follows: (i) The earlier orders of the Division Bench in the given case between the Society and encroachers have conclusively decided the rights of the parties and they are not entitled to plead that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, cannot be applied for evicting them from the encroached area. (ii) Eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be initiated and completed with regard to the land belonging to the Government and not in respect of patta lands.
N. Paul Vasanthkumar, J.
1. These matters are posted before us on the reference made by the Division Bench consisting of Mr.Justice D.Murugesan and Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Sharma (as they then were) by reference dated 16.11.2010 to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether the earlier orders of the Division Bench in the given case have conclusively decided the issue of applicability of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to patta land ?
(ii) If not, whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act can be made applicable even to patta land ?
2. For deciding the first issue, the following facts and orders passed by this Court are to be necessarily considered.
3. The Burma Indian Co-operative House Construction Society Limited was formed with an object of rehabilitating the repatriates from Burma with the aid of the Central Government in February, 1968. The said society purchased the land to an extent of 24.57 acres situate in S.Nos.131/2A, 142, 136/1, 140/1, 141/1, 137/1, 138/2B, 136/2, 131/1A and 130 of Palavakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk and according to the Society in the year 1991 as per the orders of the Director of Rehabilitation, Chennai, 20 Srilankan refuges were temporarily permitted to reside in the said Society land by the District Revenue Authority till alternate accommodation is provided to them. Along with the said Srilankan refuges some local people also encroached into the said lands. According to the appellants and writ petitioners, an attempt was made to dispossess them.
4. The association approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6750 of 1991 praying for a direction contending that in about 4 acres of land situate in Palavakkam village called Tiruvalluvar Nagar, about 230 families are residing for long number of years and on 22.4.1991 the members of the said Tamil Nadu Slum Dwellers Federation were asked to vacate by public announcement and therefore the members went before the Revenue Officials, who in turn informed that the said land belongs to the Burma Indian Co-operative House Construction Society Limited and therefore the encroachers are not entitled to reside in that place. According to the Tamil Nadu Slum Dwellers Federation, which was formed by the encroachers, even assuming that they are encroachers, they can be ordered to be vacated only by following the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. This Court by order dated 26.4.1991 disposed of the writ petition holding that there seems to be some dispute regarding ownership of the land and without going into the merits of the matter, the District Collector was directed to enquire into the matter on the request made by the Society and pass orders within a period of six weeks after issuing notice to the Federation and till orders are passed, a direction was issued not to dispossess the members of the Federation/encroachers. Pursuant to which, on 14.2.1993 the District Collector, Kancheepuram passed an order stating that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the land as the land is a patta land.
5. Again the Tamil Nadu Slum Dwellers Federation filed W.P.No.14270 of 1993 before this Court on behalf of its members/occupants praying for issuing a writ of mandamus forbearing the District Collector and others from evicting 230 members in the above said 4 acres of land. In the said writ petition the Burma India Co-operative House Construction Society was impleaded as 5th respondent, who claimed title and contended that the members of the Federation have no right to enter into the land belonging to the Society. Since there was a dispute and due to the pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.543 of 1993 filed by the Federation and another suit was pending in O.S.No.937 of 1992 before the DMC, Poonamallee in respect of the said land, this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the dispute appears to be of rival dispute, which cannot be decided under Article 226 of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
