Mere occupation of Natham land does not confer ownership; legal title must stem from lawful government grant. Forged documents undermine claims.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. Under assail is the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022. The appellant before this Court is the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

2. The 1^st respondent, Mr.T.Elumalai instituted the writ proceedings in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, seeking an electricity service connection for the disputed subject property from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The respondents 2 and 3 representing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, called for information from the appellant/Tahsildar, about the subject land in question.

3. In response, the appellant informed that the land in question is classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham”. Relying on the report of the appellant, the respondents 2 and 3 rejected the application submitted by the 1^st respondent seeking electricity service connection. Consequently, the 1^st respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order of rejection.

4. The learned Single Judge impleaded the appellant as the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition and consequently issued a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1^st respondent vide order dated 30.06.2023. On examining the documents submitted by the 1^st respondent, the appellant found them to be forged and fabricated. A report was submitted to the District Collector, Kallakurichi, who in turn passed an order vide proceedings dated 09.10.2023, refusing to issue patta in favour of the 1^st respondent.

5. The appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.533 of 2024 to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given by the Writ Court to the appellant/Tahsildar before issuing a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1^st respondent. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the writ order impugned and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.

6. The learned Single Judge re-considered the writ petition in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench and allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the appellant/Tahsildar to issue patta in favour of the 1^st respondent within a period of four weeks. The Court also directed the respondents 2 and 3 herein to entertain the application seeking electricity service connection and provide the same. Additionally, a direction was issued to the District Collector to initiate action against the Revenue Officials, who have failed to issue patta without following the provisions of the Revenue Standing Orders (RSO).

7. The Writ Court further observed that if the land is required for public purposes, it may be acquired by following the due process