The court upheld the classification of certain lands as panchamar while rejecting claims over another land not classified as such, emphasizing the need for proof of possession and historical ownership.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.17766/2017/D4 dated 03.12.2020.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Tha.Kanagamuthu, learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in survey Nos.1541, 1542 and 1543/2 measuring total extent of 2 Hectares 9 Ares situated in Andipatty Bit II Village, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District. According to the petitioner, the properties were purchased by the petitioner's grandfather, viz., Pinnath Thevar, in the year 1959. He was also issued Nos.2347 and 2043, recognizing his right in the year 1961. After the demise of the grand father of the petitioner, patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner's father, viz., Pavanath Thevar in patta No.1818 and after the demise of the petitioner's father, patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner in patta No.5974. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained electricity connection and also mortgaged the property with the Village Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and subsequently repaid the loan as well.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent without any iota of right started giving trouble to the petitioner in various modes. The third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 347 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, against the petitioner's father for injunction. The said suit was also dismissed in the year 1987. In the year 2013, he gave a petition to the District Collector, Theni, which was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, who conducted an enquiry and closed the complaint on 14.08.2014, finding it to be baseless. Not satisfied with the same, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2013 against the petitioner and other persons on the file of the District Munsif Court, Andipatty, seeking for declaration and recovery of possession. On contest, the said suit was dismissed on 09.08.2019, on the application taken out by the petitioner for rejection of plaint. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the first respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C, contending that the lands of the petitioner are panchami lands and the same were granted by the Government in favour of the grandfather of the third respondent, however, during UDR Scheme patta was wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner's predecessor. The third respondent also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13850 of 2011, to restore his alleged possession. The said writ petition was merely disposed of, directing the authorities to decide the claim of the third respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that UDR scheme was implemented only after the filing of O.S.No.347 of 1982 and therefore, the right of the forefathers of the petitioner to the subject property is out of the zone of being questioned. Though the second respondent passed an order under Section 145 (5) Cr.P.C. and prevented the petitioner from entering his property, this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 27374 of 2019, came to the rescue of the petitioner and granted stay of the said order. The third respondent filed one more writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.21093 of 2019, seeking cancellation of petitioner's patta, which was also disposed of in the admission stage, directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the above back drop would submit that what the third respondent could not achieve directly, he is now attempting to achieve indirectly through the revenue authorities. He would attack the order impugned in the writ petition as being passed, without proper application of mind and without reference to the various documents that have been relied on by the