SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 10055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.03.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.No.29757 of 2011 K.Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chennai-600 005.

3.The Assistant Settlement Officer (North) Office of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chennai-600 005.

4.The Tahsildhar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 25.04.2011 bearing No.Rc.K1/22951/05 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to treat the land as private land and to incorporate the name of the petitioner as owner of land in Survey No.457/4A3 measuring 10 acres in Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk in all revenue records.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 25.04.2011 bearing No.Rc.K1/22951/05 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to treat the land as private land and to incorporate the name of the petitioner as owner of the land in Survey No.457/4A3 measuring 10 acres in Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk in all revenue records.

2.The petitioner claims ownership over the land measuring an extent of 10 acres comprised in Survey No.657/1A2 of Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the property originally belonged to one Ramamurthy, S/o.Thangavelu. The said Ramamurthy by a Muzhika dated 27.11.1990 sold the property to the petitioner and that the said Ramamurthy was in possession and enjoyment of the property from time immemorial through his ancestors. It is also stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property and that his enjoyment is reflected in the entries contained in the adangal extract.

Therefore, he is entitled to get patta.

3.The petitioner had earlier approached the Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of patta under the Act of XXVI of 48 and the Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta under Section 11 of Act XXVI of 48. Later, the order of Assistant Settlement Officer was cancelled on a suo motu revision by the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent without considering documents and proceedings relied upon by the petitioner, passed an order dated 03.12.2007 holding that the land is a Kazhiveli Poromboke and directed the third respondent to carry out changes in the village and taluk on records. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 03.12.2007, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9118 of 2008 and the same was disposed of on

23.03.2010. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-

''In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to set a side the impugned order dated 03.12.2007, passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ref.RC/K1/22951/05 and consequently the first respondent herein is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to the effect of granting patta in respect of the subject land covered juder Survey No.657/4A3 measuring 10 acres of Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, in the light of revenue records produced by the petitioner namely adangal extracts, “A” register, Tahsildar order dated 29.09.2007 and the legal position as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court by giving opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.''

4.This Court set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter back to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of land Administration and the petitioner's request was rejected by the impugned order dated on 25.04.2011. The operative portion of the first respondent's order is extracted hereunder:-

''The arguments of the claimant are considered with reference to records and with submissions made by the revenue authorities. In the latest orders passed in W.P.No.9118 of 2008, dated 23.03.2010, Hon'ble High Court of Madras directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to the effect of granting patta in respect of the subject land covered under S.No.657/4A3 measuring 10.00 acres in the light of revenue records produced by the petitioner, namely Adangal Extract, “A” Register, Tahsildar order dated 29.09.2007 and as per legal position as per the decision of the Hob'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the said records were again examined and considered. It is seen that the Adanga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top