Madras High Court
K.Pasupathy vs The Secretary on 4 September, 2023
Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023
WMP.Nos.8352 and 8353 of 2023
K.Pasupathy
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Sub Collector,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur.
5.The Tahsildar,
Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
6.The Block Development Officer,
Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
7.The Revenue Inspector,
Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
8.The Village Administrative Officer,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023
Nattam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
9.The President,
Nattam Village Panchayat,
Gummidipoondi.
... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.834/2021/A4 dated
10.08.2022 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.3506/2022/B1, dated 30.01.2023 and quash the same and issue a
consequential direction to the respondents not to convert the usage of
classification of the land comprised in Survey Nos.17, 18/1A, 19, 21, 22,
23/7, 25, 26 and 504 measuring 17 acres belonging to common Meichal
lands of Nattam village Panchayat, situated at Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur
District from Meichal Poromboke to Vegetable/fruit Garden or to
allot/assign the lands to any private parties in respect of the said land.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyappa Raja
For Respondents : Mr.C.S.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R5 and R7 and R8
Mr.S.Yaswanth
Additional Government Pleader for R6
M/s.D.Dayanithi for R9
ORDER
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2 nd respondent/District Collector permitting the 6th respondent herein to plant mango Saplings in a land classified as Meichal Poromboke (Grazing Lands).
2. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ayyappa Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.S.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and 6 and 8, Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 6th respondent and Mr.D.Dayanithi, learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that at the time of passing orders, the 1 st respondent failed to follow the revenue standing orders and the lands which are classified as grazing lands cannot be re-assigned for any other purpose except for grazing.
4. The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments for the proposition that the grazing lands cannot be used for any other 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 purposes:
(i) Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs The State of Gujarat and others in C.A.No.5135 of 2021;
(ii) Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9, in W.P.No.19286 of 2021.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the case on hand, the 2nd respondent has not passed any order for reclassification of the Meichal land. However, the 6th respondent was only permitted to plant mango saplings. When classification is maintained as a Meichal land, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the citations relied on in the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that totally 70 acres are classified as Meichal poromboke in that village and only 17.70 acres used for raising mango saplings, the remaining land are preserved as Meichal land. The number of cattle available in the village dwindled by passage of time. It is the specific case of the respondents in the counter that the number of cattle in the villages is only about 560 and therefore the rest 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 of the land preserved as Meichal poromboke are sufficient to meet the needs of the existing number of cattles.
7. In Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs The State of Gujarat and others in C.A.No.5135 of 2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court while emphasising the need to preserve the grazing land observed as follows:
“It is trite to say that gouchar land can be used only for purposes for which it is permitted to be used. If there is a user contrary to the permissible user, whether by the State or by any third party, the same cannot go on. Rehabilitation of persons is really not required in the present case as only three persons are entitled to an alternative site as per rules. There is of course some dispute whether the encroachers have made permanent structures or kuchha construction for keeping cattle but be that as it may, the user cannot be contrary to what is being permitted for gouchar land, which is a grazing land.
In view of the aforesaid, a direction is issued to bring the land in conformity with its use by the State Government taking appropriate action within a maximum period of three months from today.” 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023
8. In Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 in W.P.No.19286 of 2021, the First Bench of this Court followed the dictum laid down in the above case law and observed as follows:
“Taking into consideration the aforesaid direction read with the Rules permitting conversion of Meikaal Poramboke and Mandaiveli lands in the State of Tamil Nadu, we find it to appropriate to direct the respondents not to convert those lands for regularization of encroachment. For other purposes also, conversion of land cannot be permitted unless equivalent area is identified and earmarked for such purpose. Any order to be passed for it shall be only after the prior approval of this Court. It would be by filing a separate application in the disposed of petition, justifying the conversion of lands and the purpose sought to be achieved, so that the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above is taken to its logical conclusion.”
9. Therefore, it is very clear, the lands identified and 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 earmarked as Meichal Poromboke cannot be used for any other purposes without identifying some other land with equivalent area for use of grazing purposes. Further, this Court categorically held that such conversion after identification of alternative site, is permissible that too only after getting prior approval of this Court.
10. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such permission has been obtained from this Court for using the grazing land for other purposes namely plantation of mango saplings. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the land is maintained as a grazing Meichal poromboke in the revenue records and only portion of the same is utilized for raising mango saplings. Therefore, the judgment of the First Bench of this Court referred above is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. It is settled law, what cannot be done directly cannot be done 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 indirectly. It is not open to the respondents to retain the classification of the land as Meichal Poromboke, but, however, use the same for other purposes. If the land is used for raising mango saplings, there will be no possibility for growth of grass in that area due to shadow created by mango trees. In such circumstances, by raising mango saplings effectively the land will be put into some other use. Ultimately grazing lands will become mango Tope. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the land is retained in revenue records as Meichal Poromboke and hence the petitioner cannot say that the same is used for some other purpose, merits no acceptance. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion, the directions issued by the First Bench of this Court in Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 in W.P.No.19286 of 2021 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. The allowing of the writ petition will not prevent the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking necessary permission as directed in case law cited above.
8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023
14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.09.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No ub To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Sub Collector, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur.
5.The Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
6.The Block Development Officer, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
7.The Revenue Inspector, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
8.The Village Administrative Officer, Nattam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
9.The President, Nattam Village Panchayat, Gummidipoondi.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 ub Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 04.09.2023 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis