IMPORTANT POINT
The dominant ownership of the Government for public water storage places and the inability to grant individual patta due to erroneous land classification.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give individual patta with specific subdivision of the land in S.No.37(2) at Vadakkupanavadali Village for an extent of 1.53 acres on the basis of the representation dated 09.03.2021.)

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give individual patta with specific sub-division of the land in S.No.37(2) at Vadakkupanavadali Village for an extent of 1.53 acres on the basis of the representation, dated 09.03.2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's grand-father Thanikodi Thevar purchased certain land measuring to an extent of 1 acre 53 ½ cents out of 2.98 acres in survey number 37/2 at Vadakupanavadali village as early as in the year 1927 by registered sale deed No.1746 of 1927 which is undivided share. The land owners in survey number 37/1A, 37/1B, 37/1C, 37/2, 37/3, 38/1 and 38/3 about 33 persons granted the land vide document number 9660 of 1935 registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Melaneelithanallur for construction of a “private tank” to store water for the purpose of agricultural irrigation and agreed to pay rent for the use of water. The deed was executed in favour of the then Government represented by the Collector. On that basis, the lands were classified as “Private Kulam” but it was not carried out by the Public works department and not acted upon. After his father inherited the property, he was in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands. After the demise of his father, he inherited the properties along with other sharers and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The patta stands in their name and a joint patta was issued for the survey number 37/2(A) which was sub-divided into various numbers. But, the lands were erroneously classified as 'Kulam'. Individual and joint pattas were granted to various persons. As on date, a portion of the land which is adjacent to the road is used as house sites and Constructions are going on. As a result, the value of the property has multiplied and there is a demand for the land.

4. The computer patta was issued to various persons and as for the survey number 37/2(A) is concerned the Patta 2159 was issued as a Joint Patta. There are no specific person's named in that patta with sub-division and specific extent and boundaries. As a result confusion arose and there are several overlapping claims. The petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit for declaration of his exclusive rights and later he was advised that the only remedy is to get a separate patta with specific survey number. When he approached the third respondent, he was informed that because of the civil suit, he cannot help. As a result, he allowed it to be dismissed because this suit was filed on a wrong advice similarly, he also filed a suit for injunction on a wrong advice and did not prosecute the same. He was advised at the time that the civil suit was an appropriate remedy but later he learnt that the classification of the land as “Nilaviyalkulam” had created problem and they cannot enjoy the property according to the need of the situation. There are several individual patta were granted and people are selling the property as house and some of them are cultivating the land and as such the land is not used as a tank. Therefore, the classification has to be modified or cancelled on the basis of the present condition of the land. When the owners are different, then it is a duty of the respondents to sub-divide and give separate patta to avoid any confusion and unnecessary disputes. The boundaries are not clear and the boundary stones are not laid properly. This is contrary to the Survey and boundaries Ac