Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
S. Nalini Selvaraj & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner/Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments, Kanchipuram & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 26270, 26272, 26432 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 27718, 27719, 27721, 27722, 27901, 27903 of 2021
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 3(b), (c), (d) and (e) - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act - Section 78(1) and (2) - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Whether the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act to remove the encroacher - Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed Writ Petitions to quash the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in M.P.Nos.217, 216 & 219 of 2021/E1 dated 08.10.2021 under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act and consequently, forbearing the 1st respondent from removing the encroachment in M/s.Queens Land Amusement Park at Pappanchathiram Village, Kanchipuram District.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petitions.
Issues: Whether the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act to remove the encroacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, came into force with effect from 01.01.1951 and from that date onwards, as per Section 3(b), the zamin estate land has been transferred and vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. As on 01.01.1951, the interest created under the Will dated 28.09.1884 ceased and the 4th respondent is entitled to claim only ryotwari patta. The 4th respondent not only ceased to be owner of the land, but also failed to prove the possession and cultivation of the land. The Government, from the date of the Act came into force and Assistant Settlement Officer, classifying the entire land as 'Anatheenam land', asserted its ownership by assigning certain portion of the land to third parties. The 4th respondent did not challenge the action of the Government and also grant of Gramanatham house pattas to the persons, who had put up houses and residing therein. The Government further demanded ground rent from the petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.2737 of 2021, set aside the order of this Court made in W.P.No.31132 of 2013, directing the petitioner to pay to the 4th respondent pursuant to the demand notice dated 26 June, 2013. Once the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order in Writ Petition No.31132 of 2013 directing the petitioner to pay the amounts as demanded by 4th respondent, the 4th respondent cannot be termed as landlord and is not entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.
Final Decision: The impugned notice proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in M.P.Nos.217, 216 & 219 of 2021/E1 dated 08.10.2021 are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned notice proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in M.P.Nos.217, 216 & 219 of 2021/E1 dated 08.10.2021 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Kanchipuram under Section 78 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary in the eyes of law and forbearing the 1st respondent from taking any further proceeding against the petitioners under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to remove the encroachment in M/s. Queens Land Amusement Park, at Pappanchathiram Village, Kanchipuram District comprised in Survey No.352/4 admeasuring 4.16 acres, Survey No.354/2, admeasuring 16.78 acre and Survey No.365, admeasuring 0.12 acre and in all 21.06 acres at Pappanchathiram Village, Kanchipuram District.)
Common Order:
These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the impugned notice proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in M.P.Nos.217, 216 & 219 of 2021/E1 dated 08.10.2021 and forbearing the 1st respondent from taking any further proceeding against the petitioners under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to remove the encroachment in M/s.Queens Land Amusement Park, at Pappanchathiram Village, Kanchipuram District comprised in Survey No.352/4 admeasuring 4.16 acres, Survey No.354/2, admeasuring 16.78 acre and Survey No.365, admeasuring 0.12 acre and in all 21.06 acres at Pappanchathiram Village, Kanchipuram District.
2. The issues and parties involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same and hence, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The land in question bearing Survey No.352/4 measuring 4.16 acres, Survey No.354/2 measuring 16.78 acres and Survey No.365 measuring 0.12 acres, along with larger extent of land of 177.7 acres in Pappanchathiram Village, Sriperumputhur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, by the Will dated 28.09.1884, registered as Document No.130/1884 in the office of the District Registrar, North Chennai, is said to have been bequeathed by one Venkaiah, S/o.Udayagiri Samiah Zamindhar of Samudrapedu Village as Zamin Village lands to Sri Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Thirukoil and Arulmigu Venugopaleeswarar Thirukoil. When the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 came into force on 01.01.1951, the 4th respondent had made an application under the said Act before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tirupathur, to get patta for said 177.7 acres, based on the Will dated 28.09.1884. The 4th respondent had no valid proof or necessary title deeds or documents to establish and prove their rights and title. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tirupathur, on 30.11.1956, rejected the application made by the 4th respondent.
3(i). The major part of land measuring 177.7 acres was under the occupation of the villagers of Pappanchathiram village as house sites and they have put up their respective residential houses. On their applications, the Assistant Settlement Officer declared the same as 'Gramanatham Natham' and classified as 'Gramanatham Poromboke' and Gramanatham patta was granted to all respective house owners under Grama Natham grant of Patta Act. The rest of the lands were declared as 'Anatheenam lands' as nobody made any claim and vested with State Revenue Department.
3(ii). After being declared as 'Anatheenam lands', the Government assigned certain lands in Survey No.390/1 to the Ground Water Resources Department and Disaster Management Department. The Government also had the proposal to assign certain lands to the State Police Department.
3(iii). The family members of said Samiya Zamin also made several petitions to the District Collector of Kanchipuram District, the 5th respondent herein
Unauthorized constructions must be removed within a specified period, and individuals can approach the authorities for grant of patta for government poramboke land.
The court emphasized the importance of fact-finding in an enquiry and directed the petitioners to respond to the notice and appear before the first respondent for further proceedings.
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
The main legal point established is the importance of following due process of law and the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in land dispute cases.
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....
A person in unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be evicted summarily if they have a bona fide claim to the property. The encroachment proceeding should only be initiated if it is clear ....
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
