BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
The District Collector, Dindigul and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
K. Lakshmananperumal – Respondent
W.A(MD) No.41 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD) No.289 of 2025
Decided On : 24-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for patta issuance based on past rulings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. government's argument about forest land classification. (Para 5) |
| 3. writ petitioner's established claim to land ownership. (Para 6) |
| 4. court recognizes longstanding possession and legal decisions favoring the writ petitioner, affirming the single judge's order. (Para 7) |
| 5. court recognizes prior rulings on the writ petitioner's rights. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's discretion under article 226 based on longstanding possession. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. writ appeal dismissed; court finds no error in lower court's decision. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
(J. NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 28.10.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.25552 of 2024, the respondents as appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to issue a patta in his favour in respect of Survey No.695/Part, to an extent of 15 acres and 65 cents situated at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, in light of the judgment dated 06.12.1985 in C.M.A. No.20 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul, and in light of G.O. Ms. No.84, Environment, Climate Change- Forest (FR.14) Department, dated 02.05.2022.
3. Short facts, shorn of elaboration, are as follows:
3.1. The writ petitioner is in possession of 15 acres and 65 cents of land in S.No.695/Part at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, inherited from his predecessors, who had cultivated banana, lemon, coffee, and other crops on the said land. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the TAMIL NADU FOREST ACT , 1882, was issued on 31.08.1977, proposing to constitute the Sirumalai West Forest Block-1 over 22,204.49 acres, which mistakenly included the writ petitioner’s land.
3.2. The writ petitioner filed Claim No.14 of 1978 before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, seeking exclusion of his land, but the claim was rejected on 07.09.1979. The writ petitioner appealed in C.M.A. No.90 of 1982 before the District Judge, Madurai North, who, on 06.10.1982, directed the Forest Settlement Officer to reconsider the matter. Upon reconsideration, the Forest Settlement Officer, on 30.04.1985, excluded the writ petitioner’s land from the proposed reserve forest area. An appeal by the District Forest Officer in C.M.A.No.20 of 1985 before the District Court, Dindigul, was dismissed on 06.12.1985, affirming the Forest Settlement Officer's decision.
3.3. Subsequently, the Special Tahsildar/Forest Settlement Officer submitted a proposal on 29.10.2010, and a revised proposal on 13.02.2017, to exclude the writ petitioner’s land. This was approved, and by order dated 02.05.2022, the Government officially declared the remaining area as Reserve Forest, effective 08.06.2022, excluding the writ petitioner’s land. Therefore, the writ petitioner was recognized as the absolute owner and is entitled to a patta.
4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents, as appellants, have filed the present writ appeal.
5. The submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General are as follows:
5.1. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to issue a patta in his favour for land in Survey No.695/Part, measuring 15 acres and 65 cents, located at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the TAMIL NADU FOREST ACT , 1882, was issued by the Government for constituting the Sirumalai West Forest Block-I, which included the writ petitioner’s land. This notification was published in the Government Gazette on 31.08.1977.
5.2. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed a claim petition in Claim No.14 of 1978 before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, seeking deletion of the said land from the forest notification.
AI
Longstanding possession and judicial affirmations of land exclusion from forest status support the issuance of a patta, regardless of governmental classifications.
Petitioner failed to establish timely claims and lineage rights for land ownership, justifying dismissal of appeals.
The authority exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring binding civil court decrees and misclassifying lands as poromboke, violating principles of natural justice.
Proper assessment of the petitioner's right over the disputed survey numbers under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 is crucial in granting Patta.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing ownership and possession of land before the enactment of relevant laws and the jurisdiction of authorities to entertain applications filed within s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.