Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring procedural legality without adjudicating disputed facts, emphasizing that title issues belong in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

Under assail is the writ order dated 13.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.23909 of 2024. The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District is the appellant before this Court.

I.Facts in Nutshell:

2. The respondents 1 to 4 have instituted a writ petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to issue patta in the name of the respondents herein for the subject lands in T.S.Nos.57/2, 57/4, 57/5 and 57/6, Old S.No.425/1A, Sirkali Town, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The 1st respondent herein gave a representation on 23.04.2024 to the Tahsildar, Sirkali Village to grant individual patta in his name in respect of the property situated at Old S.No.425/1A, T.S.No.54, Block 24, Ward-A, Sirkali Village, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District measuring about 0.13.0 ares, as per the sale deed registered as Document No.1529 of 2024. The Tahsildar/3rd respondent on verification of revenue records through letter dated 10.05.2024 informed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sirkali that the subject land has been classified as “Mudaliar Kulam”. Thereafter, the RDO addressed a letter to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Mayiladuthurai and in response the Assistant Director, in letter dated 20.06.20204 has stated that the respondents 1 to 4 jointly claim free house patta for land measuring 0.38.50 ares and as on date there is no provision to grant free house patta and directed the respondents 1 to 4 to approach the Competent Court for grant of patta in their name.

4. Under these circumstances, the writ petition came to be instituted.

The Writ Court adjudicated the issues and allowed the writ petition with a direction to reclassify the subject lands and issue patta in the name of the respondents 1 to 4 within a period of eight weeks. Aggrieved by the order, the District Collector has preferred the present Intra-Court Appeal.

II.Contentions of Parties:

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the subject lands are classified as “Government Poromboke”, more specifically, it is a “Kulam”, named as “Mudaliar Kulam”, a waterbody and therefore, no patta can be issued. The copy of the Town Survey Register produced before this Court would indicate that the subject land has been classified as “Government Poromboke” and “Mudaliar Kulam”. The sale deed produced by the respondents 1 to 4 would indicate that it is “Mudaliar Kulam”. Relying on the said documents, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it is a waterbody and therefore, merely based on the sale deed, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot seek issuance of joint patta in their names.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam Muslim Jamath Nirvaaha Mandram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu WA No.3531 of 2019 dated 06.01.2022, relevant portion reads as under:

“8. Referring to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963) (in short “aTmil Nadu Act 30 of 1963” )i,nverted by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976, he has stated that no patta can be granted in respect of even private tanks and Ooranies. When the same issue came up for consideration before the learned Division Bench in Damaodardas Chatra Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1997 (3) CTC 631], it was held that while adverting to Section 3 (b) of the Abolition Act, which is in pari materia with Section 3 (b) of the present Act that it vests all irrigation works in the Government and a right to ryotwari patta is created under the Act only in respect of private land and that too after an investigation whether there were such lands on the date of the vesting. Section 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, which pr