Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B. Balaji, J.
Dr. N.Ramamoorthy - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.17262 of 2024
Decided On : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader
The classification of 'Grama Natham' lands does not vest with the Government, and procedural fairness must be observed in land entitlement claims.
Headnote:(A) Land Administration - Natham Lands - Classification of lands as Government Sarkar Poramboke - Petitioner traced title from 1955, claiming entitlement to Grama Natham Patta - Court found that classification of lands as Government property cannot be upheld as per established legal principles. (Paras 2, 9, 10)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Impugned order passed without hearing the petitioner - Court emphasized the necessity of conducting an enquiry before finalizing decisions regarding land classification. (Paras 3, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of Natham lands based on a series of transactions starting from a partition deed in 1955, through a will and subsequent settlement deed, ultimately leading to a sale deed in 2018. The petitioner contended that the lands were wrongly classified as Government property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to Grama Natham Patta, subject to verification of his claim under the relevant category, and directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the land classification as Government property and the procedural fairness of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the classification of 'Grama Natham' lands does not vest with the Government and emphasized the need for a fair enquiry before any decision on land classification is made.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
P.B. Balaji, J.
Heard Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject lands are Natham lands and even as early as in the year 1955, there was a registered partition deed in document No.834 of 1955, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner's father's brother namely Parthasarathy became entitled to portion of the property, which was the subject matter of the said partition deed. The said Parthasarathy during his lifetime being in possession and enjoyment of the lands allotted to him and the said partitioned portion was using it as a cattle shed and he has executed a Will on 25.06.1997 in favour of his daughter Lakshmi Prabha. After the lifetime of the said Parathasarathy, his daughter Lakshmi Prabha was in enjoyment of the subject lands, which were bequeathed to her father. Thereafter, the said Lakshmi Prabha in and by the settlement deed dated 23.07.2015 in document No. 2301/2015, on the file the Sub-Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District, has settled the property in favour of her elder brother P.Rajasekaran. The said Rajasekaran in and by the sale deed dated 27.04.2018 has conveyed the property in favour of the writ petitioner.
3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of petitioner's purchase, there was a compound Wall and other structures in a dilapidated condition. It is the further case of the petitioner that after purchase, he has renovated the old structures, which were in existence for more than 65 years and based on his purchase and enjoyment of the property, he has applied for mutation of patta in his name. It is the further case of the petitioner that the lands have always been Natham Government Poramboke lands, however in the village account, it has been reflected as vacant land/Sarkar poramboku. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner would also placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in the Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs. Swaminathan and others reported in 2004(3) CTC 270
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Lingadurai appearing for the respondents would submit that the lands in respect of which, the petitioner seeks patta are reflected as Government Sarkar Poramboke lands and vacant site and this classification was done at the time of Natham survey, since no person was found to be in possession of the property.
5. He would also rely on the FMB to contend that the property in which the petitioner claims is in the occupation of other individuals, who have also put up constructions. However, straight away, meeting this objections of the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not claiming right in respect of the entire portion which is projected by the respondents as if the petitioner claims patta for the same. The petitioner's claim is restricted to 10 cents alone in the subject survey number and in fact, he would draw strength from the said FMB to contend that other persons have been allowed to construct houses and they have also been issued patta.
6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, from Mrs.Uma Maheshwari, the Revenue Inspector, who is present before this Court, would confirm that no patta has been issued to the said persons and according to the respondents, even those persons are only encroachers.
7. Be that as it may, I find that the petitioner traces title right from 1955. The learned Special Government Pleader has also placed reliance on circular dated 27.08.2024 in R1/7699421/2024 issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai. On going through the said circular, it is seen th
