Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
A. Ramachandran - Petitioner
Vs.
The Special Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (MD). No.10174 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.Sakunthala Devi.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah Government Advocate.
Emphasis on justice and fair play in addressing land classification disputes and the importance of timely consideration of representations by revenue authorities.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Revenue Records - Sy.No.151/8 - [No specific Act or Section referenced]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ancestral ownership and possession of a piece of land, which is erroneously classified as 'Local Fund Road' in revenue records. Despite his efforts to rectify the classification, no progress has been made. The court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh petition for relief, and orders the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order within a specified time frame.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's representation, directs the petitioner to resubmit the petition for necessary relief. It also instructs the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation and issue a reasoned order within a specified time frame.
Issues: Erroneous classification of land in revenue records, failure of authorities to rectify the classification, delay in addressing the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of justice and fair play, directing the petitioner to resubmit the petition and ordering the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the representation and issue a reasoned order within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.
Heard both sides.
2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 & 2.
4. According to the petitioner, the land measuring an extent of 0.11.5 ares (29 cents) in Sy.No.151/8, Merpanaikadu Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District belong to him ancestrally and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the time of his ancestors. He is using the subject property along with the adjoining lands as a house site by putting up three houses for residential purpose of himself and his sons. The aforesaid property is enclosed with fence and there are enormous kinds of trees, hayrick and manure pit besides a tractor set.
5. The stand of the petitioner is that the subject land is entered in the revenue records as 'Local Fund Road' to his great shock and dismay. In fact, the subject property is nothing to do with or in any way connected or related to the road in Sy.No.6 on the northern side of the property in question. Indeed, he filed a petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur praying for issuance of patta for the subject property in Sy.No.151/8, setting forth his claim. The said Officer directed him by means of a letter dated 13.11.2000 to seek remedy before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly, he filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangai as well as to the District Collector, Pudukkottai (2nd respondent).
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi initiated steps for change of classification of S.No.151/8 from 'Local Fund Road' to Assessed Dry Waste, as a prelude for grant of patta. The letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, in his proceedings in O.Mu.1089/2005, dated 23.02.2005 would manifest the same. That apart, the Tahsildar, Aranthangi had addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi by means of a communication dated 27.06.2005, recommending the change of classification. He had clearly indicated that the entries made during Survey and Settlement for subject property as 'Local Fund Road' is an erroneous one and against the ground realities. He had stated so, after inspecting the site.
7. Although in the revenue records, the entry is 'Local Fund Road', till date, the petitioner's possession and enjoyment is not assailed by any of the Revenue Authorities. When that be the facts situation, the Tahsildar, Aranthangi through his letter dated 26.09.2005 had informed the petitioner to approach the First Respondent/Special Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai stating that the erroneous entry made during survey and settlement could be corrected. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal before the First Respondent on 21.10.2005. He had also issued a reminder to the Director of Survey and Settlement on 27.01.2006. Unfortunately, till date, he had not received any notice in his appeal. According to him, he is an agriculturist, aged about 80 years and he is an unlettered, gullible villager and very much interested and anxious to rectify the erroneous entry made in respect of the subject property, which is his patta land, during his life time itself. Furthermore, the Survey and Settlement Authorities have committed a grave mistake of entering Sy.No.151/8 as 'Local Fund Road' and in fact, there is no iota of trace of road in Sy.No.151/8 and the boundaries for the subject land would point out that there is no road at all as on all four sides, there is no road, but there is a land of private individual. That apart, the settlement of the Village Administrative Officer made during enquiry by Revenue Inspector on 24.07.2001 would also fortify his claim that there was never ever a road in existence in Sy.No.151/8.
8. The real grievance of the petitioner is that he made a representation to the respondents on 08.09.2015 (through his advocates addressed to the 1 & 2 respondents) calling
