ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the respondent dated 01.08.2014 and to direct the respondent to issue the patta as per the order passed in W.P.No.29423 of 2013 dated 27.11.2013.

2.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is sated that the petitioner's father-in-law, namely, one Thangavel entered into a sale agreement in the year 1994 with one P.K.R.Subramanian Chettiyar in respect of the land in Survey No.33/29B (New S.No.54/25) measuring an extent of 30 cents in Mulamangalam Village, Nannilam Taluk.

3.The petitioner traces her tittle on the basis of this sale agreement.

Earlier, the petitioner's father-in-law filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam for permanent injunction against two individuals restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and obtained a decree dated 10.07.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner's father-in-law filed another suit in O.S.No.82 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam for permanent injunction against the Thasildar and the District Collector, apart from two private individuals. Though the petitioner's possession was admitted before the Civil Court, the Civil Court was unable to accept the tittle of the petitioner's father-in-law. In the second suit filed by the petitioner's father-in-law, it was held that the property belongs to Government. Therefore, a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of petitioner's father-in-

law otherwise than due process of law, was granted.

4.The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29423 of

2013 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.11.2013 by directing the Tahsildar concerned to dispose of the application dated 18.10.2013 on merits and as per law. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the land is classified as Arasu Natham Prombokku and that the petitioner is not entitled to patta and the petitioner's husband owns substantial land apart from the house site measuring an extent of 0.01.75 as per the revenue records. The house site patta is being issued only to homeless people and the petitioner is residing in her own house. Therefore, she is not entitled to get patta. Challenging the order of Tahsildar the writ petition is filed.

5.In the present case the property is classified as natham, that means that the property was being enjoyed or reserved for residential purpose of the villagers. Such property cannot be treated as the property of individual, unless it is being occupied by the individual for his stay. If any portion of the Natham property is meant for Communal purpose that portion of the property has to be treated as property of Government by virtue of Act 26 of 1948, since all Communal lands also vest with the Government free from encumbrances under Act 26 of 1948. The land which is not in the enjoyment of any individuals for putting up residential buildings can also be classified as poramboke land and no individual can claim right over the property. The petitioner himself has approached the Civil Court and sought for permanent injunction against the respondent and the District Collector. The petitioner failed to establish his title before the Civil Court. However, based on the fact that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property, the Civil Court has granted decree in the following lines:-

''17/,Wjpahf tHf;F brhj;jpd; mDgtj;jpy; css; thjpia rl;lgg; o chpa eltof;if K:yk; btspnaw;wg;gLk; tiu 1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; thjpapd; mDgtj;ij jil bra;af;TlhJ vd;W epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lisf;F bryt[j;bjhifapd;wp