Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 499
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. Prakash, B. Pugalendhi, JJ.
R. Chinnasamy – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No. 19735 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 16222 & 16223 of 2019
Decided On : 02-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Thirumurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by V.R. Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to dismiss a petition as vexatious and impose costs when the petitioner's claims are found to be unsubstantiated and detrimental to public projects.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Government Land Encroachment - Article 226 - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the classification of land as 'Paattai' and 'Salai' poromboke, the use of land for water canal and road, and the government's authority to allocate land for resettlement under the Ottanchatram Thirupur State Highway project.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an encroacher of government land, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the allotment of a water canal for construction of houses and issuance of patta for the land. The petitioner claimed that the water from the canal was used for irrigating his lands and objected to the allocation of the land to others affected by a highway project.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had encroached upon government poromboke lands and filed the petition with false averments. It also noted that the petitioner's actions had stalled the benefits intended for others affected by the highway project.
Issues: The issues revolved around the classification of the land, the petitioner's encroachment, and the government's authority to allocate land for resettlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner's claim of the land being a water canal was unsubstantiated and imposed a cost on the petitioner for filing a vexatious petition that stalled a state highway project.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs.25,000 was imposed on the petitioner payable to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund.
JUDGMENT :
B. Pugalendhi, J.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from allotting the water canal in Survey No.287/2 (Adjacent to village road in S.No.287/2) situated in Thangachiammapatty, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District, for construction of house and also from issuing patta for the said land and consequently, to preserve the said water canal from Sadayankulam Kanmoi to Nanganchiyaru.)
1. This writ petition is filed as a pro bono litigation by an encroacher of a Government land in S.No.287/2 of Thangachiammapatty Village, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District, for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the official respondents from allotting the water canal in S.No.287/2 for construction of any houses and for issuing any patta.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is having lands in S.Nos.287/1A, 287/1B, 285/2, 285/3, 286/1A, 286/2A, 286/1B, 286/2B, 300/2 and 309/1 of Thangachiammapatty, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District and the water from Sadayankulam Kanmoi is used for irrigating the said lands. According to the petitioner, the water from the Northern Kalingu of Sadayankulam Kanmoi goes through the water canal situated in S.No.287/2 of Thangachiammapatty village and reaches Nanganchiyaru. The said water canal in S.No.287/2 is of 100 feet wide and it is also adjacent to his lands in S.Nos.287/1A & 287/1B.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1964, a small village road was laid on the banks of the said water canal in S.No.287/2 and after the formation of that road, few people have unauthorisedly occupied the land and have also constructed houses on the sides of the village road. The encroachers have also sought for patta and the same was objected to by the villagers. Now the official respondents are taking steps to allot the remaining lands to the persons, who are affected by the acquisition of lands for the Ottanchatram – Dharapuram Highway project, as alternative house sites and therefore, he has filed the present petition for the aforesaid relief.
4. When the matter came up for admission, this Court ordered notice to the official respondents and pursuant to the same, the learned Special Government Pleader has filed the counter affidavit of the third respondent/Tahsildar, Ottanchatram Taluk, Ottanchatram, Dindigul District dated 19.11.2019, and would submit as follows:
(i) The land in S.No.287/2 of Thangachiyammapatti Village is a Government Poromboke and classified as “Salai”. Before UDR, i.e., even in the year 1980, the said land was classified as “Paattai” and it was never classified as a “Water course”.
(ii) The petitioner's family have encroached the land for more than 35 years and at present, the petitioner is cultivating Maize in that land. Only because of his personal interest, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(iii) The petitioner's family have encroached yet another land in Thangachiyammapatti Village in S.No.395, classified as “Vaykkal”, a water course poromboke, which is the main inlet canal of Sadayankulam Kanmoi and filed W.P. (MD)No.22124 of 2019 before this Court to forbear the respondents from evicting him.
(iv) In fact, there is no water canal in S.No.287/2, Thangachiyammapatti Village. It is only a Salai poromboke, used by the public for transportation. Apart from the road lying area, the petitioner had encroached the remaining land and cultivating Maize. In order to escape from the legal eviction proceedings against his illegal encroachment, the petitioner suppressed all the material facts and filed this vexatious petition.
(v) Apart from the petitioner, there are seven encroachers, belonging to Scheduled Caste Community, constructed small buildings in that field and used as dwelling houses. Those houses are not making any hindrance to the public pathway. Moreover, the people (encroachers) are daily wagers and not having any other houses and lands and eligible for getting fr
