SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Ramu – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tirupattur & Others – Respondents
WP No. 24108 of 2023 & WMP No. 23595 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Kalaiyarasi, Advocate. For the Respondents:E. Sundaram, Government Advocate.

Government Poramboke lands classified as 'Water Bodies' cannot be assigned or granted patta by the Revenue Authorities.

Headnote:

Government Poramboke - Possession of Water Body - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the claim for grant of patta on the basis that the petitioner was in possession of a 'Water Body' classified as 'Government Poramboke', which cannot be assigned or granted patta by the Revenue Authorities.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection of the claim for grant of patta for a land classified as 'Government Poramboke' and to direct the cancellation of the wrongly mentioned classification in Revenue Records.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land in possession of the petitioner was classified as 'Water Body' and 'Government Poramboke', and as per court orders, such 'Water Bodies' cannot be assigned or granted patta by the Revenue Authorities. The court directed the respondents to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the classification of the land in possession of the petitioner and the rejection of the claim for grant of patta.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the classification of the land as 'Water Body' and 'Government Poramboke', and the legal principle that such lands cannot be assigned or granted patta by the Revenue Authorities.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the respondents to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceeding vide No.Na.Ka.Aa1/1669/2023 dated nil.06.2023, and to quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to cancel the wrongly mentioned in Revenue Records as irrigated land during 1983-8 by UDR Survey, which was mentioned in the Re-Survey and Re-Settlement Register of the Village Record (during the British Rule in 1919) of No.11, Andiyapanur, Tirupattur Taluk, Salem District as Government Poramboke and issue the land patta in the petitioner''s name.)

The order passed by the second respondent-Tahsildar rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of patta in proceeding dated nil.06.2023, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, which is classified as ''Government Poramboke''. The father of the writ petitioner was retired from Indian Army and after his death, the writ petitioner is in continuous possession of the Government Poramboke comprised in Survey No.700, measuring to an extent of 2.37 acres, situated at Andiyapanur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur District.

3. Even as per the petitioner, he is in possession of the Government Poramboke land.

4. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, made a submission that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of patta, was considered by the Competent Authorities.

5. On verification of the revenue records, it was ascertained that the land under the occupation of the petitioner, is a ''Water Body'' and classified as ''Government Poramboke Vary''.

6. Thus the petitioner is in possession of the ''Water Body'' and as per the orders of the Courts, such ''Water Bodies'' cannot be assigned nor patta can be granted by the Revenue Authorities.

7. The Revenue Authorities have now ascertained that the land under the occupation of the petitioner is ''Water Body'' and thus, the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said ''Water Body''.

8. Thus the respondents are directed to initiate all further actions and complete the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top