High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.11.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.5044 of 1999T.Kaliyamoorthy ..Petitioner vs. 1. D.R.O. District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur2. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur 3. Tahsildar, Pattukkottai Taluk Thanjavur District...RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call forthe records relating to the second respondent order inMu.Mu.No.297/96/E1, dated 22.7.1996, and the confirmation orderpassed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.72727/96/U3, dated28.9.1998, and quash the same. For petitioner : K.Sakthivel For respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard Mr.K.Sakthivel, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocateappearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he is a permanentresident of Kurichi Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, for over 40 years.His family has been in possession of the property consisting of 10cents in S.No.147/10 of 101 Kurichi Village, Pattukkottai Taluk. Theproperty is a poromboke land in which the petitioner's family hasbeen residing by constructing a building therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It has been further stated by the petitioner that in the year1979, the third respondent had issued a B. Memo with regard to thesaid property. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a civil Suitin O.S.No.1155 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif Court,Pattukkottai, praying for the relief of declaration and forinjunction, declaring that the petitioner has got a pre-emptive rightover the said property. Since, the suit had been dismissed, on8.4.1981, the petitioner had preferred a first appeal in A.S.No.36 of1981, before the Subordinate Court, Pattukotai. The first appeal hadbeen allowed, on 13.11.1981. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree ofthe first appellate Court made in A.S.No.36 of 1981, the thirdrespondent had preferred a second appeal before this Court inS.A.No.1240 of 1982. 4. It has been further stated by the petitioner that proceedingswere initiated to grant patta in favour of the persons who were inactual possession of the poromboke lands. Accordingly, the SpecialTahsildar (Natham settlement), Pattukkottai, had initiated theproceedings by way of enquiries, based on which the petitioner wasgranted patta in respect of the S.No.147/10 of 101 Kurichi Village,Pattukkottai Taluk, on 9.1.1991, in patta No.118 of Village No.63,Kurichi Village, Thanjavur District. 5. It has been further stated by the petitioner that on19.10.1994, this Court had allowed the second appeal, setting asidethe judgment and decree made in A.S.No.36 of 1981, and consequently,restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court made inO.S.No.1155 of 1979. Based on the judgment and decree of this Courtmade in S.A.No.1240 of 1982, the second respondent had initiatedproceedings to cancel the patta granted to the petitioner.Accordingly, the patta granted to the petitioner was cancelled by thesecond respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.297/96/E1, dated22.7.1996. Against the said order of cancellation of patta, thepetitioner had preferred a revision before the first respondent.However, the first respondent confirmed the order of the secondrespondent,by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.72727/96/U.3, dated 28.9.1998.Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing thepresent writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is that the land in question is Grama Natham in which theState Government cannot claim an automatic right. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied onthe decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated31.1.2003, made in W.P.Nos.382 to 394 of 2001, which has beenconfirmed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in THE EXECUTIVEOFFICER, KADATHUR TOWN PANCHAYAT HARUR TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.SWAMINATHAN AND OTHERS (2004 (3) CTC 270). 8. Paragraph 13 of the said order of the Division Bench of thisCourt reads as follows:"13. In the light of the above and in view ofthe fact that the admitted classification of theland being a 'Grama Natham', it is obvious thatthe land was never vested with the Government orthe Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitionersand their ancestors were in exclusive possessionof the lands in question for the past 40 years,the impugned order of the third respondent incancelling the pattas with a view to evict themsummarily at the instance of the resolution passedby the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further sucha summary eviction is not permissible in law whenthe disputed question of title is involved foradjudications as laid down by the Apex Court innumber of decisions." 9. It has been further submitted that the impugned orders havebeen passed by the first and second respondents without givingsufficient opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claimswith regard to the property in question. 10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondentshad submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by theconcerned respondents, in accordance with law, based on the recordsavailable including the judgment and decree of this Court, dated19.10.1994, made in S.A.No.1240 of 1982. Since the petitioner hadencroached upon the lands belonging to the State Government, theproceedings had been initiated against the petitioner to evict him inaccordance with the procedure established by law.11. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the orders ofthe first and second respondents may be set aside and the petitionermay be given an opportunity to substantiate his claims before theconcerned authority, in view of the order of the Division Bench ofthis Court, reported in THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KADATHUR TOWNPANCHAYAT, HARUR TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT Vs. V.SWAMINATHAN ANDOTHERS (2004 (3) CTC 270). 12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondentshas no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocateappearing for the respondents, the impugned order of the secondrespondent in Mu.Mu.297/96/E1, dated 22.7.1996, and the confirmation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.72727/96/U3, dated28.9.1998, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to thesecond respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against thepetitioner, in accordance with law, after affording sufficientopportunity to the petitioner.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.lan To1. D.R.O. District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur2. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur 3. Tahsildar, Pattukkottai Taluk Thanjavur District+ 1 CC To Mr. K.Sakthivel, Advocate SR NO. 70911+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 70780Writ Petition No.5044 of 1999ts[co]gp/26.12.