Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P.SAHI, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
A.Pavadaisamy - Appellant
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu Additional Chief Secretary – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.3399 of 2019 against Writ Petition No.679 of 2018
Decided on : 26-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Government Pleader
For the respondent: Mr.M.Ravi
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 183, 186 or 188 - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,1905 - Section 6 - Inquiry - Claim that he is purchaser of property - Petitioner claims that he is purchaser of property bearing Nagar - Petitioner states that he purchased property - He states that has been staying in property in question for more than years prior to sale to petitioner - Writ petitioner states that after purchase of property he has been issued voter ID card and electricity connection is in his name - He has also paying the property tax regularly for premises where he is residing – Held, Petitioner has to have purchased property more than years back - There is no registered document to show his purchase - Records reveals that land where property is situated has been described classified as water way - District Collector have seen registers before arriving at this conclusion – Petitioner appellant has not shown any document to contrary which would substantiate his contention that area is not situated on water way - Fact that other persons have got does not in any way substantiate claim of petitioner that he is also entitled - Long possession of Government land does not legitimize claim - Writ petitioner cannot claim title by way of adverse possession over this land - Fact that he has been given electricity connection voter ID card also does not give right to petitioner to claim on water way land - Judgment of Single Judge deciding to interfere with order rejecting claim of petitioner for grant does not warrant any interference - Single Judge has further directed Authorities to remove all encroachments by following due process of law - Respondents have filed status report before Single Judge stating that they have initiated action in removing encroachments in District - Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order, dated 24/08/2018, passed in W.P.No.679 of 2018.
The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 in WP.No.679 of 2018.
2. The writ petitioner claims that he is a purchaser of the property bearing T.S.No.245/1, at door No.145, Kuthoos Gurusamy Salai, Cuddalore Mudhu Nagar, Marapalam, Cuddalore. The writ petitioner states that he purchased the property on 12.11.2003 from one Anandhan. He states that the said Anandhan has been staying in the property in question for more than 20 years prior to the sale to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner states that after the purchase of the property, he has been issued a voter ID card and the electricity connection is in his name. He has also paying the property tax regularly for the premises where he is residing.
3. Owing to refusal by the Municipal Corporation to receive the property tax from the writ petitioner. The petitioner claimed for a pata to be issued to him. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents. The District Collector by an order dated 23.03.2014, directed the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector to investigate the documents regarding the grant of patta to the writ petitioner and submit a report to Tahsildar. By an order dated 02.12.2015, the Cuddalore Revenue Tahsildar rejected the application for grant of patta. The Tahsildar in the said letter held that though the petitioner/appellant is living in the property for more than 12 years, has an electricity connection in his name and possesses family card, voter ID card, the land is a poramboke land and therefore patta cannot be issued to the writ petitioner.
4. It appears that the writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5085 of 2016 and this Court had directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry by an order dated 29.03.2016. The Tahsildar once again by an order dated 28.07.2016, rejected the application for grant of patta. The Tahsildar in the said letter observed that the place is recorded in the revenue municipality as “Sarkar Poramboke Upanaru”. The Tahsildar observed that since the area has been classified as “water way poramboke”, no patta can be issued.
5. The writ petitioner filed a second writ petition being W.P.No.1046 of 2017 to quash the order of the Tahsildar. This Court by an order dated 12.01.2017 directed the District Collector, Cuddalore to treat the writ petition as an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar and directed the District Collector to dispose of the same.
6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.01.2017, the District Collector on 29.07.2017, rejected the appeal. The District Collector affirmed the findings that the place where the writ petitioner resides is recorded as “Sarkar Poramboke Upanaru” and is a water way poramboke. Against the said order the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
7. The primary contention of the writ petitioner is that there are several families living in the area. He states that everybody has been given voter ID card, electricity connection and some persons have also got patta based on long years of residence in the area. The writ petitioner therefore states that there is no reason to single him out and deprive him from issuing a patta. The learned Single Judge by an order impugned herein held that the area where the writ petitioner resides is water way poramboke and therefore no patta can be granted to the writ petitioner. This court instead of dismissing the writ petition, went further and directed that everybody residing in the area which is classified as water way poramboke including the writ petitioner herein must be evicted by initiating appropriate proceedings. It is this order which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
8. The appellant has contended that he has been residing in the property for a period over 12 years. The petitioner
