Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DURAISWAMY, K. MURALI SHANKAR, JJ.
AR. Chandrasekar – Appellant
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.P(MD) No. 14575 of 2021 & W.M.P(MD) Nos. 11506, 11507, 14248 of 2021
Decided on : 06-10-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Registered sale deed – Property – Property tax - It is case of petitioner that he purchased patta lands from one under a registered sale deed - Vendor of the petitioner purchased entire land by a registered sale deed and acquired Survey through registered Will, executed by her husband - According to petitioner, the property was assessed to property tax and also he obtained electricity connection from TANGEDCO - Whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide – Held, It is not duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether summary remedy prescribed by Act can be put into operation for evicting a person - What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of property on which encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide - Documents produced by the petitioner, in support of his case, clearly established that he is in possession and occupation of land on the west of North-South panchayat thar road and not on the east of the said road - When he is not in possession and occupation of land on the east of North-South panchayat thar road, he cannot be construed as an encroacher - In such view of the matter, orders passed by respondents are liable to be set aside - Accordingly the same are set aside - With the above observations, Writ Petition is allowed - Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
JUDGMENT :
M. Duraiswamy, J.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in RC.No.T2/23748/2013, dated 28.07.2021 confirming the order of the impugned order of the second respondent in Roc.E4/22003/2012, dated 25.08.2013 and impugned order of the third respondent, dated 15.10.2012 served on the petitioner in Na.Ka.A5/17456/2008, dated 19.10.2012, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to execute assignment for 23 cents of land in Survey No.49 in lieu of 40 cents patta land in survey No.174/2 in K.Vairavanpatti Group, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District relinquished for panchayat land as per Board Standing Order 26-A, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.)
1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 28.07.2021, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 25.08.2013 and the order of the third respondent, dated 15.10.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to execute assignment for 23 cents of land in Survey No.49 in lieu of 40 cents patta land in Survey No.174/2 in K.Vairavanpatti Group, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, relinquished for panchayat land as per Board Standing Order 26-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased patta lands in Survey Nos.171, 172 and 174/1 in K.Vairavanpatti Village Panchayat, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District from one Azhagu Meenal, W/o Subramanian Pillai, on 17.09.2003 under a registered sale deed. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the entire land in Survey No.174 by a registered sale deed, dated 24.10.1963 and acquired Survey Nos.171 and 172 through registered Will, dated 19.04.1994 executed by her husband. After the purchase, the petitioner obtained patta in his name and put up construction including a dwelling house and a temple after getting approval from the local authorities. According to the petitioner, the property was assessed to property tax and also he obtained electricity connection from the TANGEDCO. While so, on a complaint made by his neighbour alleging that he encroached the water body in Maravanendal Kanmoi in Survey No.49, the third respondent issued a notice in the year 2008 and after field inspection and verification, the authorities found that no encroachment was made by the petitioner. The third respondent also submitted a report to that effect to the second respondent. Again in the year 2012, at the instance of the petitioner's neighbour, the same issue was raked up and proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, for the removal of encroachment without conducting any field inspection or identifying the alleged encroachment.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that when the panchayat road was to be developed during the year 1968-1969, there was exchange of patta land by the petitioner's vendor in Survey No.174 by offering 40 cents of her patta land for the formation of the panchayat road under Board Standing Order 26-A in lieu of 23 cents in Survey No.49. The procedure is by relinquishment of right in patta land under BSO 26-A and according to the petitioner, the Revenue Authorities should have issued assignment for 23 cents in Survey No.49. After the exchange of 40 cents in Survey No.174, the said Survey Number was divided as Survey No.174/2, which is a panchayat road. According to the petitioner, the entire extent of Survey No.49 is not a Kanmoi in entirety, but it is of mixed character of Kanmoi on the east of Survey No.49 and vast extent of vacant land on its west. Across the western portion, there is a pucca metal thar road of Village panchayat laid in 1972. On the east of panchayat road, there are row of electrical polls and on the west of panchayat r
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
