Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Thooramma vs The District Revenue Officer on 18 January, 2019

Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana

Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana

                                                               1

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 18.01.2019

                                                        CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

                                            W.P.Nos.7319 to 7321 of 2018

                      R.Thooramma                             .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7319/2018

                      1. M.Sunil Kumar
                      2. M.Naveen Kumar                       .. Petitioners in W.P.No.7320/2018

                      L.Krishnappa                            .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7321/2018

                                                              Vs.

                      1. The District Revenue Officer,
                         Collector Office,
                         Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

                      2. The Sub Collector,
                         Sub Collector Office,
                         Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

                      3. The Tahsildar,
                         Shoolagiri Taluk Office,
                         Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

                      4. The Village Administrative Officer,
                         Thiyaranathurgam Village,
                         Thuppuganapalli Post,
                         Shoolagiri Taluk,
                         Krishnagiri District.            .. Respondents in all W.Ps

                                                          ***
                      Prayer in W.P.Nos.7319 & 7320 of 2018 : Writ petitions filed under
                      Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of
                      Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                          2

                      issued in Pa.Mu.25752/2017/J-2, dated 27.02.2018, quash the same
                      and consequently direct the first respondent to rectify the errors crept
                      in, in the revenue records in respect of land to an extent of 77 cents
                      comprised in Survey No.1064/6 and 1064/3 of Thiyaranadurgam
                      Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District respectively and issue
                      computerized patta and chitta and also patta to the petitioners within
                      the time to be stipulated by this Court.
                      Prayer in W.P.No.7321 of 2018 : Writ petition filed under Article
                      226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified
                      Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent issued in
                      Pa.Mu.16846/2017/J-2, dated 22.02.2018,          quash    the   same and
                      consequently direct the first respondent to rectify the errors crept in, in
                      the revenue records in respect of land to an extent of 95 cents
                      comprised in Survey No.1051/4 situate at Thiyaranadurgam Village,
                      Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue computerized patta and
                      chitta and also patta to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated
                      by this Court.
                                                         ***
                            For Petitioners in all   :    Mr.R.Bharathkumar
                             these W.Ps.

                            For Respondents in all :      Mr.V.Shanmugasundar
                             these W.P.s                  Special Government Pleader


                                             COMMON              ORDER


Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is common, these writ petitions have been taken up for hearing together and disposed of, vide this common order.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3

2. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash the orders passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to rectify the errors crept in, in the revenue records in respect of the properties situate in the petitions mentioned survey numbers at Thiyaranadurgam Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue computerized patta and chitta and also patta to the petitioners within a stipulated time.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.7319 of 2018 claimed that her husband Ramaiah was assigned with the petition mentioned lands by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Krishnagiri, in the proceedings dated 09.07.1982 made in A.M.534/1991. It is the claim of the petitioners in W.P.No.7320 of 2018 that their grandfather Basavappa was assigned with the petition mentioned lands by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Krishnagiri, in the proceedings dated 09.07.1982 made in A.M.535/1991 and they bequeathed the property through a Will. The petitioner in W.P.No.7321 of 2018 claimed that he purchased the petition mentioned lands from one Venkatappa, who was assigned the lands by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment) vide the proceedings in A.M.No.375/1991. They claimed that the revenue http://www.judis.nic.in 4 records also stood mutated in their favour and Patta Pass Books were also issued in the year 2004 itself and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. When they applied for Chitta, it came to light that the lands were classified as Anadheenam Government poramboke.

4. Contending that a wrong classification was made without issuing any notice to them and seeking to issue patta in their favour, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents 1 to 3. Since there was no response, they filed writ petitions, which were disposed of by this Court directing the first respondent to consider their representations and pass orders in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned orders came to be passed by the first respondent rejecting their request. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Refuting the claim of the petitioners, separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The crux of the submission therein is that the petitioners have failed to produce documents to substantiate their claims, including the assignment patta, kist receipts, etc. It is further stated that since the entries were http://www.judis.nic.in 5 wrongly made during the Updating Registry Scheme, the lands were resumed as Anadheenam Government Poramboke lands. The respondents stated that the impugned orders were passed, after conducting detailed enquiry.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have been issued with computerised pattas in the year 2004. When they applied for Chitta, they learnt that the lands were classified as Anadheenam Government Poramboke. While doing so, the petitioners have not been given any notice or opportunity of personal hearing. When the petitioners have been given pattas, the same cannot be changed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned orders would go to show that it is merely recorded by the first respondent that the petitioners did not produce any documents in support of their claims. Further, the only other reason assigned by the first respondent is that entries were wrongly made during the Updating Registry Scheme and as such the lands were resumed as Anadheenam Government Poramboke lands. The first respondent failed to record the details as to whether the petitioners sought time to produce the documents and it was granted or not and also they have been given opportunity to defend the claim of the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 respondent that the mistake committed while Updating Registry Scheme was corrected and the lands were resumed.

7. Admittedly, the assignments granted to the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.7319 of 2018 in the proceeding in A.M.No.534/1991, dated 09.07.1982 ; the grandfather of the petitioners in W.P.No.7320 of 2018 in the proceedings in A.M.No.535/1991 of even date ; and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in W.P.No.7321 of 2018 in the proceedings in A.M.No.375/1991 ; are not cancelled by the respondents. In the absence of cancellation of the same, the impugned orders are illegal.

8. Besides, the first respondent has not given any valid reason for classifying the patta land as “Anadheenam Promoboke”, despite the computerized patta being issued in the names of the petitioners. The enquiry by the fourth respondent/Village Administrative Officer also does not furnish any particulars in this regard. In such circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent are liable to be quashed.

http://www.judis.nic.in 7

9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are ordered by setting aside the impugned orders. Resultantly, the first respondent is directed to rectify the errors crept in, in the revenue records in respect of petitions mentioned lands and issue computerized patta and chitta to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

18.01.2019 Speaking / Non-speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gg To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Sub Collector, Sub Collector Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri Taluk Office, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Thiyaranathurgam Village, Thuppuganapalli Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

http://www.judis.nic.in 8 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

gg W.P.Nos.7319 to 7321 of 2018 18.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in