Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Prabaharan Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. – Respondent
WA No. 1792 of 2023 | CMP No. 15733 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Mutharasu
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Arunkumar, Addl.G.P. for r1 to R4, No appearance for R5, Mr.K.Venkatasubban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R6
The court rule that possession based on bogus land documents cannot grant property rights, emphasizing the need for legitimate ownership documentation.
Headnote:(A) Relevant statutes - The case involves examination of encroachment on government land, addressing considerations of property rights and valid documentation of land ownership. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Legal principles - The court held that the production of bogus documents cannot legitimize an encroachment upon government property. (Paras 5-10)
(C) The right to fair process - The writ petition questioned the eviction process and the absence of notice. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The writ appeal came from the assistant divisional engineer contesting the restoration of possession to the respondent based on alleged land ownership which was claimed to be bogus. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The enquiry report confirmed that the respondent's patta is a non-existent document, invalidating his claim over the land classified as government poramboke. (Paras 6-9)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondent maintained any legal right to the land in question despite being classified as an encroacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that valid property ownership must be substantiated by legitimate documentation, and fraudulent claims on government land will not be upheld. The order of the writ court was reversed.
Result: The writ appeal was allowed, ruling against the continued possession of the land by the respondent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding ownership. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. findings from the district collector’s enquiry. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion of the court to set aside the writ. (Para 10) |
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 13.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.30148 of 2018.
2. The 6th respondent in the present writ appeal preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.30148 of 2018 seeking a direction to the official respondents to restore the petitioner’s possession status quo ante in and over the house constructed in 2 cents bearing Natham S.No.407/1, Sujalnatham Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, covered under the HSD Patta No.2171/90 dated 24.08.1981 besides payment of compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs for the mischief committed by the respondents for violation of his right to life, shelter and livelihood, which were infringed on 18.05.2018 by considering his representation dated 16.07.2018. The writ Court passed an order granting the relief as sought for by the writ petitioner and further directed the official respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner towards costs.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the subject land is classified as Government promboke and the 6th respondent Mr.G.Ramaraj has been identified as an encroacher. Enforcement actions were initiated and the Government lands were resumed. After resumption, the writ petition came to be filed seeking to restore the possession status quo ante. The writ Court has not considered the fact that the 6th respondent is an encroacher and the documents produced by him to establish his ownership are bogus documents.
4. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would oppose by stating that the subject land is a natham land and an assignment was granted in favour of the 6th respondent. Based on the assignment, patta was granted and thus, the 6th respondent cannot be construed as an encroacher. The writ Court considered all these aspects and granted the relief. No show cause notice was issued before evicting the 6th respondent and for all these reasons, the writ petition came to be allowed.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would mainly contend that the subject lands are classified as Government promboke and no assignment was granted in favour of the 6th respondent. The patta produced by the 6th respondent is a bogus document. Therefore, the writ Court has granted the relief without considering these ground raised by the State authorities.
6. In view of the said submission, this Court vide order dated
29.01.2026 directed the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to conduct an enquiry and ascertain whether the patta produced by the 6th respondent/writ petitioner is a genuine document.
7. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the District Collector, Dharmapuri, has commenced an enquiry through letter dated 07.02.2026. Notice was issued to all the parties and an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector by affording opportunity to all the parties. Revenue documents were produced by the concerned authorities. The District Collector elaborately conducted an enquiry and the enquiry report filed by the District Collector before this Court would show that the patta produced by the 6th respondent/writ petitioner is a bogus document. The relevant findings of the District Collector in his enquiry report are extracted hereunder.
6. I respectfully submit that the Photocopy of the alleged patta was scrutinized in par with the all of the revenue records available with the Revenue and the Highways department and the enquiry findings are as follows:
A. The subject matter of the entire Facio revolves around Survey No.407 of the Sunjalnatham Revenue Village in the Eriyur Revenue Firka of the Pennagaram Taluk in the Dharmapuri District (herein after referred to as "the Subject lands”).
B. The Subject Lands before the i
