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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
M.Boopalan – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Thiruvallur District – Respondent
WP No. 24916 of 2025|WMP No. 28074 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

Prior patta grants to Scheduled Tribes under RSO 21 for 25 years bar mandamus for encroachment removal on reclassified poramboke land.

Headnote:The petition under Article 226 seeks mandamus to remove encroachments from land classified as Kuttai Poramboke, a water body, based on representations dated 27.01.2025 and 22.02.2025. Court found the land was reclassified from Ellakuttai grama natham and free pattas granted to Scheduled Tribes in 2000 under Revenue Standing Orders, with no evidence of cancellation. Petitioner's reliance on 2015 Full Bench judgment held inapplicable due to prior assignment. Issue framed: Whether directions for encroachment removal warranted despite 2000 patta grants to Scheduled Tribes. Ratio: Long-standing pattas under RSO 21 prevail over subsequent claims; court not inclined to interfere after 25 years. Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks removal of encroachments from poramboke water body. (Para 1 , 2)
2. land reclassified; pattas granted to scheduled tribes in 2000. (Para 3 , 4)
3. prior patta under rso 21 prevails over later claims; petition dismissed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

For Petitioner : Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents: Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 R4- No appearance ******* Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the illegal and unlawful encroachments in S.No.183/5, Palanyanur Village, Tirutani Taluk, Tiruvallur District classified as “Kuttai Purambokku”, by considering the representation dated 27.01.2025 and the remainder dated 22.02.2025 of the petitioner herein, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the subject land has been classified as “Kuttai Poramboke”. Therefore, it is a water body and thus the encroachments are to be removed. He would further submit that the subject land remains as a vacant land and the patta issued in favour of few persons are cancelled.

3. Rebutting the said contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader based on instructions by the Tahsildar, Tiruttan would submit that S.No.183/5 was initially classified as “Ellakuttai grama natham” i.e., water body. However, in the year 2000, the Authorities found that the said lands are to be assigned in favour of Irular - Scheduled Tribes and accordingly granted free patta in terms of the Revenue Standing Orders.

4. The said factum was admitted by the petitioner in his affidavit in paragraph No.6 that the 1st respondent has issued orders for grant of house site patta to Irular - Scheduled Tribe people in S.No.183/5. However, the petitioner has not produced any document to establish that the patta granted in the year 2000 was cancelled by the competent Authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2015 (5) LW 397.

6. However, the said judgment was delivered in the year 2015 and in the present case, free house site patta to the Irular – Scheduled Tribes were granted in the year 2000 and the patta stand in their names for the past 25 years.

7. In view of the fact that the subject land has already been assigned in favour of the Scheduled Tribe people and patta was granted in the year 2000 by re-classifying the land in terms of RSO 21, this Court is not inclined to consider the present Writ Petition.

8. Consequently the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top