IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
Bharathy – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 – Respondent
W.P. No.21220 of 2025 | W.M.P.Nos.23970, 23971 and 23973 of 2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and classification of property. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments about the denial of ownership and compensation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of the impugned order regarding compensation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. classification in revenue records is not conclusive of title. (Para 7) |
| 5. presumptions related to patta entries. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. patta entries as prima facie evidence of title. (Para 11) |
| 7. presumption of ownership in possession. (Para 12) |
| 8. significance of burden of proof. (Para 13) |
| 9. state's failure to discharge the burden of proof. (Para 17) |
| 10. impugned order's arbitrariness and violation of article 14. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 11. conclusion to set aside the impugned order. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 11.04.2025, though wrongly stated as 03.04.2025 in the writ petition*, insofar as it finds that petitioners failed to establish that ownership over subject properties acquired for industrial purposes vest with the petitioners inasmuch as documentary evidence was not produced by petitioners to show how classification of subject properties changed from “Government poromboke” to “patta” resultantly not entitled to compensation. The writ petition also seeks a direction to deposit the compensation determined with liberty being sought to claim enhanced compensation.
2. Brief Facts:
2.1. Petitioners herein are joint owners of the property bearing S.Nos.256/4A, S.No.257/3 and S.No.257/1B, measuring an extent of 4.46.50 hectares situated in Madharpakkam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District (hereinafter referred to as the "subject properties"). The impugned order raises the question as to whether subject properties are patta land owned by petitioners (or) Government Poromboke, it is thus necessary to trace the devolution of title of “subject properties” to resolve the controversy.
2.2. Devolution of title to subject properties is set out below:
2.2.1. Devolution of title for Old S.No.256/4, New S.No.256/4A, measuring an extent of 3 acres & 53 cents :
(i) Lands in Old S.No.256/4, New S.No.256/4A, were originally owned by one Rani and her children, who sold the subject land measuring an extent of 3 acres and 53 cents in S.No.256/4 of Madarpakkam Village to one Vasunthara and Chandrammal vide Sale Deed dated 31.10.1979, registered as Document No.1595 of 1979, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gummudipoondi. Subsequently the said Vasunthara and Chandrammal sold the subject land to one M.A.Rajendra Prasad vide Sale Deed dated 25.01.1993, registered as Document No.45 of 1993, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gummudipoondi. The said M.A.Rajendra Prasad in turn sold the subject land to one S.A. Fernandez who is late father of petitioners no.1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4, from whom the property had devolved upon petitioners. The said property was always patta lands as evident from the UDR which stood in the name of Chandrammal vide Patta No.525. Further, Patta bearing No.525 was issued in the name of M.A.Rajendra Prasad. Subsequently, upon sale, patta was mutated in favor of S.A.Fernandez in respect of subject land measuring an extent of 3.53 Acres vide Patta No.956. At present, patta stands in the name of petitioners vide online patta No.4045.
2.2.2. Devolution of title for land in S.No.257/3, measuring an extent of 5 acres:
(i) Land in S.No.257/3 was originally owned by one A.B.David who sold the subject land to one M.A.Rajendra Prasad. The said M.A.Rajendra Prasad vide Sale Deed dated 09.09.1996, registered as Document No.1896 of 1996, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Gummadipoondi sold the subject land to one S.A.Fernandez who is late father of petitioners no.1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4. After his demise, the subject lands devolved upon petitioners. The said property have always been patta lands as evident from the UDR patta which originally stood in the name of A.B.David vide Patta No.453. Further, patta in respect of subj


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.