Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
K.M.Nalinishree Rep by her power agent Mr.Prakash Challa - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.No. 32737 of 2024 & W.M.P. No. 35581 of 2024
Decided on : 23-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel For Mr. Rahul Balaji
For the Respondents:Mr. P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted By Mr. A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader
The court emphasized the necessity for governmental compliance with prior court orders concerning land assignment, asserting that logged records must accurately reflect legal ownership.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Act - Sections related to land assignment and patta evolution - Petitioner sought rectification of online records to match with physical pattas. The Court condemned the State's failure to honor prior undertakings, emphasizing the integrity of court orders and due process of law. (Paras 6, 20, 35)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The Court criticized the misuse of PILs to undermine valid assignments, reiterating that earlier government commitments must be upheld. (Paras 13, 24, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petition arose after the petitioner, representing the estate of a deceased war veteran, was unlawfully denied possession and correct online records for 3.89 acres of land previously assigned. The petitioner had obtained multiple court orders directing the government to rectify records after noncompliance with earlier promises.
Findings of Court:
The entries in the online patta contradicted the legally issued physical patta and were ordered to be corrected to reflect true ownership.
Issues: The main issues involved the legitimacy of land assignment despite a pending PIL and the failure of the State to comply with its commitments to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that legally assigned land cannot be taken away without due process, stressing the need for the government to honor past court orders and commitments made.
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing rectification of records.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. concern over the state's failure to uphold undertakings. (Para 2) |
| 2. assignment of land to the petitioner's husband. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. failure of the authorities to comply with court directions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. development plan initiated by the petitioner. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. litigation emerging from public interest concerns. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. government's failure to address grievances. (Para 19) |
| 7. grievance over incorrect classification in online patta. (Para 20) |
| 8. arguments presented by the petitioners against state actions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. historical context of land assignment and subsequent legal actions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. court's reasoning for aligning online patta with physical patta. (Para 34 , 35) |
ORDER :
P.T. ASHA, J.
The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
“To direct the respondents to rectify the revenue records including the online patta in respect of the subject property comprising 3.89 acres in Survey Nos.66/2 and 67/2 and restore the name of the 1st petitioner in the online patta for the above Survey nos. in line with the physical patta granted in patta no.728 dated 24.12.2002”.
2. The case on hand highlights a very dangerous trend wherein after giving undertaking before the Court, the said undertakings are sought to be set at naught in subsequent cases by stating that these orders have been passed at the instance of the person without authority. It is rather unfortunate such a trend is being adopted by the State. The facts narrated below would highlight the anxiety and apprehension of this Court.
3. The 1st petitioner's husband one Madhavan, who is a retired Indian Air Force personnel had been assigned lands to an extent of 3.89 acres in S.No.411/1, 411/2, 411/3, 411/4, in Karanai Puducherry, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram, bearing Reference No.DC-78/76 dated 31.03.1967.
4. After the assignment in favour of the 1st petitioner's husband, the Forest Department had entered possession of the said lands constraining the said Madhavan to institute W.P.No.10733 of 1993, on the file of this Court for removal of the encroachments by the Forest Department.
5. The Forest Department filed a counter affidavit wherein they had offered assignment of equivalent lands in S.No.67/2 measuring 72 cents and S.No.66/2 measuring 3.17 acres. Pending the above Writ Petition, Madhavan passed away and the 1st petitioner was substituted as his legal heirs.
6. By order dated 24.03.1999, recording the undertaking of the respondents therein for assignment of alternate lands as in the counter, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to grant patta and deliver possession of the land in S.No.66/2 and 67/2 in Thazambur Village to the 1st petitioner.
7. Despite the above order, which had been passed on the basis of the undertaking, the respondents failed to comply with the directions. Therefore, the 1st petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.848 of 1999. In this petition, the 5th respondent herein had sworn an affidavit on 13.10.1999, stating that no claim petition was pending in respect of the lands in Thazambur village, which is classified as Anadheenam.
8. Since the 1st petitioner was not put in possession by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.1159 of 2001 and by an order dated 28.01.2002, this Court pleased to direct the District Collector to put the 1st petitioner in possession of the subject lands in S.No.66/2 and 67/2 in Thazambur Village. Even thereafter, the orders of this Court was not obeyed.
9. The 1st petitioner preferred Cont.P.No.794 of 2002. By an order dated 12.12.2002, the contempt petition was disposed of directing grant of patta to the 1st petitioner and to put the petitioner in possession of the land. The jurisdictional Tahsildar thereafter handed over possession which is recorded in the Land Delivery Receipt dated 21.12.2002 and she was also issued with the patta in patta No.728 dat
