IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
M.E. Sekar & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1998 to 2005 of 2012
Decided On : 21-06-2022
Eri Poromboke - Land Allotment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.543, G.O.Ms.No.854, Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 - The court discussed the dispute over the land allotment, the regularization of encroachments, and the legal provisions related to the protection of water bodies and eviction of encroachments. The court emphasized the duty of the government to protect and improve the natural environment, including water bodies, and the need to restore the land to its original position to serve as a water source for the people.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with their possession of a property and to obtain a patta. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the lands were allotted for a housing scheme and patta issuance was not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question was originally Eri Poromboke and directed the restoration of the land to serve as a water body to recharge bore-wells and provide water to the people.
Issues: Dispute over land allotment, regularization of encroachments, and patta issuance.
Ratio Decidendi: The government has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including water bodies, and must restore the land to its original position to serve as a water source for the people.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the court directed the restoration of the land to serve as a water body. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.A.No.1998 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16607 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.1999 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24161 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2000 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24162 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2001 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24163 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2002 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16607 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2003 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24167 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2004 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24169 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.
W.A.No.2005 of 2012: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24939 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012.)
Common Judgment
T. Raja, J.
1. Challenging the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.16607 and 24161 to 24169 of 2008, dated 27.06.2012, the appellants have filed these writ appeals.
2. The appellants/writ petitioners filed W.P.Nos.16607 and 24161 to 24169 of 2008 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.253/1, Ponniamman Koil Street, Padi, Chennai, with a further direction to the third respondent Tahsildar to grant patta in the light of G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006.
3. By the impugned common order dated 27.06.2012, learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions holding that the lands in question were allotted to the Housing Board for implementing the Housing Scheme to the general public and to all the categories of society and therefore, the question of issuance of patta in respect of the land in question does not arise. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners have filed the present writ appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all their properties form part of Survey No.253/1 of Padi Village and they have been residing in that vicinity for more than 20 years and the local authorities had also provided electricity and telephone connections, etc. The certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur, classified the said land as “Eri Poromboke”, however, there is no tank in existence and the entire tank area was handed over by the State Government to the second respondent/Housing Board, who have put up construction in the very tank area.
5. It is further submitted that the Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.543, Revenue Department, dated 05.04.1988, to regularize the occupants in Survey No.253, Padi Village, which is the subject land. Further, the Tahsildar, Kanchipuram, in his proceedings dated 01.10.1996, stated that in respect of poramboke lands, proceedings are being conducted for grant of house site pattas. Subsequently, the Government also passed G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue 1 (2) Department, dated 30.12.2006, granting house site pattas to those people who have been residing for more than 10 years in unutilized government poramboke lands. Based on the same, the writ petitioners made representation requesting grant of patta to the Chief Minister's Cell. Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Land Survey and Records Department, Thiruvallur, vide his proceedings dated 27.02.2007, directed the third respond
The duty of the government to protect and improve the natural environment, including water bodies, and the need to restore the land to its original position to serve as a water source for the people.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the State to hold and manage communal properties, such as water bodies, for the benefit of the community. The judgment also emphasizes ....
Point of law : water bodies cannot be alienated even if they are dry and cultivation carried on dried bed of water bodies does not denude land of its character as water bodies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed questions of fact relating to title and possession should be decided by the competent civil court, and the power of judicial review i....
The main legal point established is the significance of upholding conditions in land grants, considering larger public good and sustainable development, and preventing unauthorized conversion of cult....
The State has a constitutional duty to provide housing for the poor, and the implementation of welfare schemes should not be obstructed by vested interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the public trust doctrine, sustainable development principles, and environmental protection laws in refusing the lease renewal f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.