Madras High Court
L.Jothilingam vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 August, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2015
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 14.08.2015
ORDERS DELIVERED ON :19.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)No.2579 of 2013
and
M.P(MD).No.2 of 2013
1.L.Jothilingam
2.G.Varadharajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate, Madurai-625 020.
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Collectorate,
Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the proceedings dated 11.1.2013 passed in
Rc.No.4589/2012/N on the file of the first respondent herein confirming the
order dated 12.12.2011 in Rc.No.15687/2011/D2 on the file of the second
respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to
issue a computerized patta jointly in favour of the petitioners pertaining to
the lands bearing T.S.No.74/2 corresponding to Old Survey No.210/134, to an
extent of 3 acres and 37 cents in Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai District, within a time frame.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar
Additional Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 11.1.2013 passed in Rc.No.4589/2012/N on the file of the first respondent herein confirming the order dated 12.12.2011 in Rc.No.15687/2011/D2 on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to issue a computerized patta jointly in favour of the petitioners pertaining to the lands bearing T.S.No.74/2 corresponding to Old Survey No.210/134, to an extent of 3 acres and 37 cents in Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, within a time frame.
2. The petitioners herein are the joint owners of the vacant land to an extent of 3.37 acres situated in T.S.No.74/2 corresponding to old Survey No.230/134 in Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. It is stated by the petitioner that the said property originally belonged to their grand fathers. The said fact is also evidenced from the land survey register pertaining to the above S.No.74/2 in which, the petitioners grandfathers R.Sakkana Thevar and K.Veerandi Konar, names were found and the extract was issued by the office of the District Collector, Madurai and as such, it is a public document, within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
3. While so, the paternal grand fathers of the petitioners, executed a Will in favour of the first petitioner and the second petitioner respectively, bequeathing their undivided share in favour of them. The petitioners have become the absolute owners pertaining to their respective undivided half share in the afore-said property. There is no claim over the property in question. Though patta No.395 had been granted jointly in favour of the paternal grand fathers of the petitioners, the original patta or even the copy of the same, could not be produced so far.
4. In an earlier occasion, the petitioners have approached this Court vide W.P.(MD).Nos.10916 and 10917 of 2011 for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent therein to issue patta in the name of the petitioners. By a common order, this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition on 23.09.2011 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.08.2011 for the issuance of patta to the petitioners. Accordingly, the second respondent therein inspected the property in question and rejected the claim of the petitioner dated 12.12.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have preferred yet another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.14839 of 2011, which was disposed of, by this Court, on 01.03.2012, with a direction to work out their remedy under Section 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act before the appellate authority. However, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 01.03.2012, yet, the Division Bench by its order dated 14.06.2012, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD).No.14839 of 2011. Therefore, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the first respondent through their memorandum of appeal dated 29.06.2012. By an order dated 11.01.2013, the first respondent too rejected the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief stated supra.
5. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that as against the rejection order, the petitioner could very well prefer a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and second revision before the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the area as per RSO 38(8). On earlier occasions also, some third party had claimed the land in question and their claim was negated by this Court. It is further averred that several others by taking advantage of illegal and forged entries in the Survey Land Record relating to Tallakulam Village, after more than 100 years are now coming forward with spate of petitions to grab the precious and most valuable lands located in front of Mattuthavani Bus Stand. The entire S.No.134 measuring an extent of 47 acres of land were settled as 'Government Poromboke-Pudukulam tank' as early in the year 1921 and as per the printed 'A' Register, it was handed over to the Revenue Department by the settlement party and therefore, the subsequent transfers by way of sale deeds are illegal and against the tenets of law.
5.1. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that Tallakulam Village where the impugned lands are alleged to be located is a 'ryot village' in common parlance 'Ayan village'. Hence, re-settlement was taken up under Madras Act 1908 and completed with the printing of 'A Register' dated 25.08.1921. The lands for which patta is sought for by the petitioners herein are classified as 'Pudukulam Tank' which was part of erstwhile irrigation system in Madurai city and due to the advent of urbanisation, this tank has become defunct and the said land was allotted for various public purposes. The Supreme Court has also reiterated in a catena of decision that the water body has to be kept in tact.
5.2. Further, the petitioners herein have requested computer chitta with respect of an extent of 3.37 acres of land, whereas, they were not given patta at the time of resettlement. The records produced by them were only rough SLR copy and after the completion of the settlement process in the year 1921, the entire extent of 47 acres of land were classified only as 'Government poromboke' as 'Pudukulam Tank' and that 'Madras Estates Land Act, sub-section (16) of Section 3, 'ryoti land' means cultivable land in estate other than private land, but does not include (a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels and hence, while finally settling the land, the land was classified only as Government Poromboke and that even under the Town Survey, an extent of land comprising in 0.7671.5 hactares of lands in T.S.No.74 (corresponding to old R.S.No.134/2A1 part was classified only as 'Government poromboke' and 'pudukulam tank' as water body and had the predecessors of the petitioners herein had any grievance, they should have taken up the matter on appeal against the settlement process to the competent authority and hence, the petitioners have no case after a lapse of 95 years. Thus, the second respondent through his counter affidavit prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the first respondent had called for a report from the second respondent, dated 12.02.2012, neither the first respondent nor the second respondent had furnished the same to the petitioners which is the vital document for passing the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Further, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing to defend against the report dated 12.02.2012, based on which the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent. Further, when the petitioners are able to produce the land register, which being a public document has records to show that the lands in question were belonging to the predecessors of the petitioners, no more documents are required by the respondents. When the respondents are not able to show that there was no existence of patta No.395, in any of their village records, and when there was no dispute or quarrel over the fact that the Patta No.395 stood in the name of the predecessors in title of the petitioners, the respondents ought to have issued the patta as prayed for by them. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the first respondent order dated 11.01.2013 and consequently to issue patta in favour of the petitioners herein.
7. The learned Government Advocate reiterated the statement made in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not eligible for grant of patta in respect of the lands under dispute as it is Government poramboke classified way back in the 1921.
8. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. It is seen that the petitioners are tracing their title through the land survey register, whereas, the respondents are tracing their records of entries through 'A' register dated 25.08.1921 which states that the lands claimed by the petitioners are classified as 'Pudukulam Tank'. Further, it is alleged by the respondents that illegal and forged entries were made in the survey land record relating to Tallakulam Village. Though very many grounds have been raised in the grounds of appeal filed in support of this Writ Petition, on a bare perusal of the records placed before this Court and from the submissions made on either side, it is crystal clear that there are a lot of disputed facts involved in the issue on hand. This Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry as regards the title in question. Therefore, this Court is also unable to stretch its hands beyond the factual aspect pleaded in this Writ Petition. Since any of the observations made in this order would affect the rights of the petitioners which otherwise they can prove before Civil Court through legal means, needless to mention that when the dispute clouds over the title, the proper course for the parties concerned is to approach the Civil Court and get their remedy redressed by marking evidence both oral and documentary. Therefore, there is no option for this Court but to drive away the respective parties to work out their remedy before the civil forum in the manner known to law.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. While doing so, it is made clear that the Civil Court shall not influence any of the observations made hereunder and decide the issue on hand afresh, on its own merits and in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds urged in this Writ Petition before the Civil forum.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Madurai-625 020.
2.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Collectorate,Madurai-625 020. .