Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S.N. Duraisamy S/o Late Nataraja Gounder - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Erode - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10416 of 2022, W.M.P. No. 10130 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Manokaran
For the Respondents: A. Selvendran, Murali
Reclassification of communal land requires adherence to legal procedures, and authorities cannot act arbitrarily without following the established process.
Headnote:(A) Panchayat Raj Act - Sections 53, 55, and 58 - Writ petition seeking to prevent reclassification of communal land (Kalam) to accommodate encroachers - Court emphasized that reclassification must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary - The District Collector lacks authority to change classification without proper procedure. (Paras 1, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Public Trust Doctrine - The government must act as a trustee for communal lands and cannot regularize encroachments without a conscious decision that aligns with public interest. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prevent the reclassification of land classified as 'Kalam' to accommodate encroachers, arguing that such action would violate established legal principles regarding communal land. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the proposed reclassification was illegal and arbitrary, emphasizing the need for adherence to the procedure outlined in the Panchayat Raj Act. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: The main issue was whether the District Collector has the authority to reclassify land already designated as 'Kalam' and the legality of proposed assignments of such land. (Paras 4, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the reclassification of communal land must follow established legal procedures and that the government has a fiduciary duty to protect communal resources. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Result: The action of the respondents in proposing to assign house site plots in the land classified as 'Kalam' was set aside.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from changing the revenue classification of Kalam (Thrashing Floor) based on the representation made by the petitioner on 10.04.2022.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:
"The apprehension of the petitioner is that the subject property which has been classified in the revenue records as 'Kalam' is sought to be changed in order to grant patta to encroachers.
2. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by placing reliance upon the Division Bench in W.P.No.33684 of 2018 etc., dated 07.04.2022 submitted that such reclassification cannot be made to accommodate the encroachers and the Division Bench in that case was dealing with the lands which were classified as "Meikkal Poramboke" which was sought to be reclassified as "Grama Natham". The learned counsel also relied upon the judgement of Full Bench of this Court in T.K. Shanmugam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2015 (5) LW 397.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that he has only received oral instructions from the Commissioner of Land Administration and he seeks for sometime to take written instructions and submit the same before this Court.
4. Post this case under the caption 'for orders' on 26.02.2025."
3. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for third respondent.
4. The issue that is involved is as to whether the District Collector can reclassify the subject property, which has already been classified as "Kalam" (Thrashing Floor). Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as of now, there is no proposal to grant any patta by re-classifying the land to the encroachers. However, as and when occasion arises, the respondent will consider re-classification of the land.
5. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment that has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, the judgment of the Full Bench in T.K. Shanmugam's case referred supra. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
"40. As noticed above, the Division Bench while adding a word of caution that they are not advocating a general principle to regularise all encroachments or encourage them observed that if the State Government takes a 'conscious decision' to regularise certain encroachments and if the land is not required for any public purpose, the State Government would be well within the jurisdiction to do so. Thus, the question would be as to what is a 'conscious decision' and what would be the manner in which the appropriate authority will come to a conclusion that the land is not required for public purpose In our view a 'conscious decision' in such cases with particular reference to encroachment in water bodies should be in consonance with the public trust reposed on the Government in respect of such lands (water bodies). The State being a trustee of these natural resources such as tanks, lakes etc. has to necessarily act consistent with the nature of such trust. The vesting of these lands and water bodies with the Government is to benefit the public and any attempt made by the Government to act in a manner derogatory to the object for which the land was vested, has to held to be illegal. The underlying fundamental principle being that such rights are public rights are in a higher pedestal than private rights. We may take a look of the matter from a different perspective. The Government has considered that water bodies, which have fallen into dis-use and have been encroached upon could be declared as not required for any public purpose and the encroachments could be regularised. What the Government has failed to see is the cause as to why these water bodies,
