Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
M.G. Annadurai, President, Betheal Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Chennai & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 33684 of 2018, 31250 of 2019 & 24252 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2022
Land Encroachment Act - Issuance of Patta - Act of 1905 - Summary: The court addressed a batch of three writ petitions seeking direction for issuance of patta of the land occupied by the petitioners or the members of the association and challenging the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1905. The court found that the reclassification of the land by the District Collector for issuance of patta was beyond his competence and illegal as it required specific orders from the Government. The court also emphasized that encroachment on grazing land is impermissible and the petitioners, as rank encroachers, cannot claim regularization. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merits.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions sought direction for issuance of patta of the land occupied by the petitioners or the members of the association and challenged the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1905. The land in question was the subject-matter of a previous judgment, and the respondent administration failed to comply with the directions given in the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reclassification of the land by the District Collector for issuance of patta was beyond his competence and illegal as it required specific orders from the Government. The court also emphasized that encroachment on grazing land is impermissible and the petitioners, as rank encroachers, cannot claim regularization. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merits.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of reclassification of land for issuance of patta, the impermissibility of encroachment on grazing land, and the petitioners' claim for regularization as encroachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reclassification of the land for issuance of patta was beyond the District Collector's competence and illegal without specific orders from the Government. The court also emphasized that encroachment on grazing land is impermissible and the petitioners, as rank encroachers, cannot claim regularization.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merits, and closed the related motions.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court addressed a batch of three writ petitions involving land encroachment, land classification, and issuance of pattas. The petitions sought directives for the issuance of pattas to the petitioners or their associations and challenged notices issued under the relevant land encroachment law (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the reclassification of land by the District Collector for the purpose of issuing pattas was beyond his authority and was therefore illegal, as such reclassification required specific orders from the Government. The court emphasized that encroachment on grazing land is impermissible, and encroachers cannot claim regularization (!) (!) .
The land in question was classified as grazing land in official records, and no valid orders from the Government for its reclassification had been produced. Consequently, the reclassification by the District Collector was deemed illegal, and the issuance of pattas based on such reclassification was not permissible (!) (!) (!) .
The court underscored that encroachment on government land, especially grazing land, is illegal and cannot be regularized unless there are exceptional circumstances as per applicable policies and rules. Regularization of illegal encroachments is limited and cannot be claimed as a matter of right (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the land classification as "Meikkal" (grazing land) remains unchanged, and any change in land use requires specific government orders. Without such orders, reclassification and subsequent issuance of pattas are illegal (!) (!) .
The court referred to the relevant procedural provisions, emphasizing that the issuance of pattas can only be authorized by the Government following proper procedures. The absence of such orders renders the reclassification and issuance of pattas illegal (!) .
The court noted that the land was the subject of previous directions to conduct an inquiry and ensure proper procedures for eviction and regularization. The authorities' failure to comply with these directions, including delays and non-implementation of orders, was a concern (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that encroachers, especially those who are rank encroachers or unauthorized occupants, do not have a right to claim regularization or protection from eviction. The principles governing illegal occupation prohibit granting pattas or regularization in such cases (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the claim for issuance of pattas was not justified given the illegal nature of the encroachments, the lack of proper governmental authorization, and the applicable legal principles against regularization of unauthorized land occupation (!) (!) .
The court also pointed out that the petitions lacked merit because the procedures for eviction and regularization had not been properly followed, and the land's classification as grazing ground was still valid, further preventing regularization (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P.No.33684 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representations in pursuance of the order dated 10.05.2010 in Na.Ka.No.43992/2008/No.1 passed by the District Collector, Kanchipuram and as per the order dated 28.07.2008 in Na.Ka.No.43992/2008/No.1 passed by the 5th respondent.
W.P.No.31250 of 2019 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned illegal notice dated 28.08.2019 issued by the respondents 3 and 4 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's detailed written explanation reply letter dated 06.09.2019 within a stipulated time.
W.P.No.24252 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta to the Members of the Petitioner's society and thereby drop all further proceedings under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.)
Common Order
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.
1. A batch of three writ petitions was heard together as it involves a common controversy in regard to the same area of land for which relief has been prayed.
2. W.P.No.33684 of 2018 has been filed to seek a direction on the respondents to consider the representation pursuant to the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram and also the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, and, accordingly, grant patta or such other reliefs.
3. W.P.No.31250 of 2019 has been filed to challenge the notice dated 28.8.2019 issued by respondents 3 to 4 therein under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [for brevity, "the Act of 1905"] and quash the same. It is further with the direction to consider the petitioner's detailed explanation/reply dated 6.9.2019 within a time frame. The writ petition pertains to the same area in reference to which W.P.No.33684 of 2018 has been filed.
4. W.P.No.24252 of 2021 has been filed by an association to seek a direction on the respondents to issue patta to the members of the association and drop all the proceedings under the Act of 1905 and pass orders as is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts averred in W.P.No.31250 of 2019. The writ petition pertains to an area in Injambakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, formerly Kancheepuram District. The concerned locality is known as Bethealnagar. The petitioner in the said writ petition and the members of the different associations are residing in the area in question for the last many years. They made several representations to the government for issuance of house site pattas. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Administration has taken a decision to issue patta to 435 beneficiaries in Survey No.282/2. As a first step, the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, vide letter dated 13.4.2010 addressed to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, finalised and enlisted 88 eligible persons for granting house site pattas out of the 435 beneficiaries. Thereafter, the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 10.5.2010, changed the classification of the land in respect of 9344 Sq.Mtrs. in Survey No.282/2 out of the total extent of 20.78.0 hectares from "Meikkal Poramboke" to "Grama Natham" for grant of house site pattas. Pursuant to the said reclassification, the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, vide proceedings dated 28.7.2010, addressed to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, informed about the reclassification of the aforesaid land by the District Collector and his recommendation for issuance of patta to 88 persons. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, vide letter dat
Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.
Unauthorized constructions must be removed within a specified period, and individuals can approach the authorities for grant of patta for government poramboke land.
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
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
