A.R.Meenakshi others v. State of Tamil Nadu Ors.) wherein it is held that a land could either
Case Details
Acts & Sections
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.06.2023CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.No.33767 of 2022andW.M.P.No.10197 of 2023T.Elumalai ... PetitionerVs.1. The Superintendent Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi.2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Ltd., Pudupattu, Kallakurici District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District. (R3 Suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 11.04.2023 made in W.P.No.33767 of 2022) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 07.11.2022 in Ref.Ka.No.oomi.Po/E & pa/Pudup/Ko/A.No.174 and quash the same and consequently direct the Page No.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents to give electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at Kizhakku street, Puthirambattu Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi receipt dated 18.07.2022.For Petitioner:Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.S.RamachandranFor R1 & R2M/s.Daniel Mary*****ORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 07.11.2022 in Ref.Ka.No.oomi.Po/E & pa/Pudup/Ko/A.No.174 and consequently direct the respondents to give electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at Kizhakku street, Puthirambattu Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi receipt dated 18.07.2022.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application seeking new electricity service connection to his Natham land. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 07.11.2022 based on the report of the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram classifying the petitioner’s land as “Government Poromboke Kaali Page No.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Natham”. Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is in occupation of Natham land, however, the second respondent vide impugned order dated 07.11.2022 rejected the petitioner's application seeking electricity connection, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram on the ground that the said land is Government Poromboke Kaali Natham which is per se unsustainable. Further it is evident from proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram dated 28.06.2023, that the property is classified as ''Gramanatham'', which being a dwelling unit, the Revenue Officials have no power to raise objection to the petitioner's application seeking new electricity service connection. 4. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court reported in 2013-4-L.W.76 (A.R.Meenakshi & others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.) wherein it is held that a land could either be a village natham or a Government poramboke or a Page No.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis privately owned land. No land could be classified as pattina natham. However, in the present case on hand, the respondents rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the property is “Government Poromboke Kaali Natham” which is contrary to the Revenue Standing Order and the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid decision. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:“14. Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General raised one contention, namely that even if the land in question is a gramanatham, it is a communal property, which cannot be appropriated by individuals. But, the said argument was already repelled by Satyanarayana Rao,J in Palani Ammal Vs L. Sethurama Aiyangar [1949 (1) MLJ 290= (1949) 62 L.W. 204], by holding that gramanatham is not a communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal. It is a land in the occupation of individuals, whose possession cannot be interfered. The individual in possession could very well resist ejectment and even institute a suit for ejectment against a trespasser......20. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs. Raghavan [2012 (1) CTC 280], a Division Bench of this Court pointed out that gramanatham is the village habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside. They are also known as house sites. They are classified as gramanatham to differentiate them from inam lands, ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands, which vest in the Government. Therefore, after quoting with approval, the decisions in S.Rengaraja Page No.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Iyengar, A.K.Thillaivanam and A.Srinivasan, the Division Bench reiterated the position that gramanatham is not vested in the Government.......24. But unfortunately, overlooking all the above documents, the District Collector has passed the impugned order branding the land as a pattina natham. There is no classification known as pattina natham anywhere in the Madras Presidency or in the Provinces. I do not know wherefrom the District Collector invented such a new classification, which had never existed. A land could either be a village natham or a Government poramboke or a privately owned land. No land is classified as pattina natham. Therefore, the impugned order is obviously erroneous and is liable to be set aside.25. The impugned order also shows total lack of application of mind. In the last but two paragraphs of the impugned order, the District Collector has used the expressions "Government poramboke" and "gramanatham" as synonyms. But they are not. After using the expressions "Government poramboke" and "gramanatham" as synonyms, the District Collector has relied upon the entry in the adangal as though it is a pattina natham. Thus, the District Collector used all expressions together very loosely.”5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent electricity Board submitted that the petitioner's application seeking electricity service connection was rejected based on the report submitted by the Page No.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tahsildar, Sankarapuram on the ground that the patta which was alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner with respect to S.No.184/7 is a bogus one, for which disciplinary action has been taken against the Village Administrative Officer, Pothampatu for making wrong entries in the Revenue Records. He further submitted that there were objections for grant of new electricity service connection stating that the vacant land in S.No.184/7 is classified as Government Poromboke land. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.6. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.7. Admittedly the aforesaid property is classified as Natham, but, based on the report submitted by the third respondent the petitioner's application seeking electricity connection was rejected on the ground that the patta which was issued in favour of the petitioner, purports to be a bogus one as the said land is classified as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham''. Though disciplinary action has been taken against the Village Page No.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Administrative Officer concerned for making wrong entries in the Revenue Records, however this Court is not concerned with the same. 8. It is pertinent to point out that the Village Administrative Officer, has no power to effect changes in the Revenue Records and it is the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, who alone could make the relevant entries in the Revenue records with regard to reclassification of land and modifying the patta already issued in favour of any individuals. More so, the impugned order also states that the subject property is classified as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham''. It is to be pointed out that the Revenue Standing Orders does not contain any classification as the one aforesaid and the classification could either be ''Poromboke land'' or ''Natham land'' and not a classification such as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham'' could not be made. 9. It is crystal clear from the proceedings of the third respondent dated 28.06.2023, that the aforesaid land is classified as Natham in the 'A' Register. Natham is a land, which does not vest with Page No.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Government. It is a land in occupation of individuals, whose possession cannot be interferred. The Revenue officials must be aware of the entire Revenue Standing Orders and other relevant G.O.s including the decision of this Court. On a perusal of the provsions of the Revenue Standing Order, it is clear that Natham is a land which is meant for dwelling purpose in which the State has no power of interference. However, without being aware of the provisions contained in the Revenue Standing Orders, the Revenue officials frequently interfere with the possession of innocent persons, which necessitates the said individuals to knock the doors of this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:-(i) The third respondent is directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to entertain the application seeking electricity service Page No.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis connection and provide the same, if it is otherwise in order. (iii) The District Collector concerned is directed to initiate action against such of the revenue officials who fail to issue patta to persons without following the provisions of the revenue standing orders.(iv) However, if the said land is required for public purpose, it is open to the Government to acquire the land by following the due provisions of law. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.30.06.2023(rap)Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes / NoPage No.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis M.DHANDAPANI, J.(rap)To1. The Superintendent Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi.2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Ltd., Pudupattu, Kallakurici District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District.W.P.No.33767 of 202230.06.2023Page No.10/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.06.2023CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.No.33767 of 2022andW.M.P.No.10197 of 2023T.Elumalai ... PetitionerVs.1. The Superintendent Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi.2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Ltd., Pudupattu, Kallakurici District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District. (R3 Suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 11.04.2023 made in W.P.No.33767 of 2022) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 07.11.2022 in Ref.Ka.No.oomi.Po/E & pa/Pudup/Ko/A.No.174 and quash the same and consequently direct the Page No.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents to give electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at Kizhakku street, Puthirambattu Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi receipt dated 18.07.2022.For Petitioner:Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.S.RamachandranFor R1 & R2M/s.Daniel Mary*****ORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 07.11.2022 in Ref.Ka.No.oomi.Po/E & pa/Pudup/Ko/A.No.174 and consequently direct the respondents to give electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at Kizhakku street, Puthirambattu Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi receipt dated 18.07.2022.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application seeking new electricity service connection to his Natham land. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 07.11.2022 based on the report of the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram classifying the petitioner’s land as “Government Poromboke Kaali Page No.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Natham”. Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is in occupation of Natham land, however, the second respondent vide impugned order dated 07.11.2022 rejected the petitioner's application seeking electricity connection, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram on the ground that the said land is Government Poromboke Kaali Natham which is per se unsustainable. Further it is evident from proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram dated 28.06.2023, that the property is classified as ''Gramanatham'', which being a dwelling unit, the Revenue Officials have no power to raise objection to the petitioner's application seeking new electricity service connection. 4. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court reported in 2013-4-L.W.76 (A.R.Meenakshi & others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.) wherein it is held that a land could either be a village natham or a Government poramboke or a Page No.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis privately owned land. No land could be classified as pattina natham. However, in the present case on hand, the respondents rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the property is “Government Poromboke Kaali Natham” which is contrary to the Revenue Standing Order and the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid decision. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:“14. Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General raised one contention, namely that even if the land in question is a gramanatham, it is a communal property, which cannot be appropriated by individuals. But, the said argument was already repelled by Satyanarayana Rao,J in Palani Ammal Vs L. Sethurama Aiyangar [1949 (1) MLJ 290= (1949) 62 L.W. 204], by holding that gramanatham is not a communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal. It is a land in the occupation of individuals, whose possession cannot be interfered. The individual in possession could very well resist ejectment and even institute a suit for ejectment against a trespasser......20. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs. Raghavan [2012 (1) CTC 280], a Division Bench of this Court pointed out that gramanatham is the village habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside. They are also known as house sites. They are classified as gramanatham to differentiate them from inam lands, ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands, which vest in the Government. Therefore, after quoting with approval, the decisions in S.Rengaraja Page No.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Iyengar, A.K.Thillaivanam and A.Srinivasan, the Division Bench reiterated the position that gramanatham is not vested in the Government.......24. But unfortunately, overlooking all the above documents, the District Collector has passed the impugned order branding the land as a pattina natham. There is no classification known as pattina natham anywhere in the Madras Presidency or in the Provinces. I do not know wherefrom the District Collector invented such a new classification, which had never existed. A land could either be a village natham or a Government poramboke or a privately owned land. No land is classified as pattina natham. Therefore, the impugned order is obviously erroneous and is liable to be set aside.25. The impugned order also shows total lack of application of mind. In the last but two paragraphs of the impugned order, the District Collector has used the expressions "Government poramboke" and "gramanatham" as synonyms. But they are not. After using the expressions "Government poramboke" and "gramanatham" as synonyms, the District Collector has relied upon the entry in the adangal as though it is a pattina natham. Thus, the District Collector used all expressions together very loosely.”5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent electricity Board submitted that the petitioner's application seeking electricity service connection was rejected based on the report submitted by the Page No.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tahsildar, Sankarapuram on the ground that the patta which was alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner with respect to S.No.184/7 is a bogus one, for which disciplinary action has been taken against the Village Administrative Officer, Pothampatu for making wrong entries in the Revenue Records. He further submitted that there were objections for grant of new electricity service connection stating that the vacant land in S.No.184/7 is classified as Government Poromboke land. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.6. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.7. Admittedly the aforesaid property is classified as Natham, but, based on the report submitted by the third respondent the petitioner's application seeking electricity connection was rejected on the ground that the patta which was issued in favour of the petitioner, purports to be a bogus one as the said land is classified as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham''. Though disciplinary action has been taken against the Village Page No.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Administrative Officer concerned for making wrong entries in the Revenue Records, however this Court is not concerned with the same. 8. It is pertinent to point out that the Village Administrative Officer, has no power to effect changes in the Revenue Records and it is the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, who alone could make the relevant entries in the Revenue records with regard to reclassification of land and modifying the patta already issued in favour of any individuals. More so, the impugned order also states that the subject property is classified as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham''. It is to be pointed out that the Revenue Standing Orders does not contain any classification as the one aforesaid and the classification could either be ''Poromboke land'' or ''Natham land'' and not a classification such as ''Government Poromboke Kaali Natham'' could not be made. 9. It is crystal clear from the proceedings of the third respondent dated 28.06.2023, that the aforesaid land is classified as Natham in the 'A' Register. Natham is a land, which does not vest with Page No.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Government. It is a land in occupation of individuals, whose possession cannot be interferred. The Revenue officials must be aware of the entire Revenue Standing Orders and other relevant G.O.s including the decision of this Court. On a perusal of the provsions of the Revenue Standing Order, it is clear that Natham is a land which is meant for dwelling purpose in which the State has no power of interference. However, without being aware of the provisions contained in the Revenue Standing Orders, the Revenue officials frequently interfere with the possession of innocent persons, which necessitates the said individuals to knock the doors of this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:-(i) The third respondent is directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to entertain the application seeking electricity service Page No.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis connection and provide the same, if it is otherwise in order. (iii) The District Collector concerned is directed to initiate action against such of the revenue officials who fail to issue patta to persons without following the provisions of the revenue standing orders.(iv) However, if the said land is required for public purpose, it is open to the Government to acquire the land by following the due provisions of law. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.30.06.2023(rap)Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes / NoPage No.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis M.DHANDAPANI, J.(rap)To1. The Superintendent Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi.2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Ltd., Pudupattu, Kallakurici District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District.W.P.No.33767 of 202230.06.2023Page No.10/10