Madras High Court
Bethel Nagar Residents Welfare ... vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 25.03.2022
Orders Pronounced on : 27.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
Bethel Nagar Residents Welfare Association,
Registration No.340/1997,
Represented by its President,
M.G.Annadurai,
Having registered Office Functioning at
No.1/879, First Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Bethel Nagar, Injambakkam,
Chennai – 600 115. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
___________
Page 1 of 43
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Principle Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
4. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Principle Secretary to Government,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and
Fishermen Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
5. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government/
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Commissionerate of Land Administration, A.C.S/C.L.A,
P.W.D Estate, Ezhilagam Building, Fourth Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
6. The District Collector,
Chennai District, Collectorate,
Singaravelar Maaligai, Fourth Floor,
No.62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
7. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
___________
Page 2 of 43
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
Office of the District Collector,
Collectorate, Kanchipuram – Vandavasi Road,
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
8. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai City Corporation,
Ripon Buildings, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
9. The District Revenue Officer,
Kanchipuram District,
Office of the District Collector,
Collectorate, Kanchipuram – Vandavasi Road,
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
10. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Revenue Division,
Anna Salai, Guindy,
(Near the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University)
Chennai – 600 032.
11. The Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
st
No.1, 1 Cross Street, New Kumaran Nagar,
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
12. The Assistant Commissioner,
Greater Chennai City Corporation Zonal-XV,
No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Old Mahabalipuram Road,
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
___________
Page 3 of 43
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
13. The Revenue Inspector,
Sholinganallur Firka,
Nedunchezian Salai, Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119.
14. The Village Administrative Officer,
No.14, Injambakkam village,
Dr.Nanjunda Rao Road, Injambakkam,
Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai – 600 115. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider
and dispose of the petitioner detailed representation, dated 13.09.2019 within
a stipulated time fixed by this Court, consequently, to direct the respondents
1 to 6 to implement the benefits of Peoples Welfare Schemes of Government
of Tamil Nadu Orders in G.O.Ms.No.318, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department Land Disposal Wing [LD1 (2)] Section, dated
30.08.2019, G.O.Ms.No.480, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department Land Disposal Wing [LD1 (2)] Section, dated 11.09.2020 and
G.O.Ms.No.567, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Land
Disposal Wing [LD1 (2)] Section, dated 17.09.2021 to the families living
and residing in S.No.282/2, Injambakkam, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai
District – 600 115.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anandha Babu
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar,
State Government Pleader
for RR-1 to 7 and 9 to 11 and 13, 14;
Mrs.J.Karthika Ashok,
Standing Counsel for RR-8 and 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
___________
Page 4 of 43
W.P.No.1738 of 2022
ORDER
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.
The petitioner, namely Bethel Nagar Residents Welfare Association has filed this Writ petition for and on behalf of its members who are the occupants of the area known as Bethel Nagar comprised in S.No.282/2, Injambakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, which is a sub-urban area to the Greater Chennai City Municipal Corporation.
2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's detailed representation, dated 13.09.2019 within the time stipulated by this Court and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to implement the benefits of Peoples Welfare Schemes of the Government of Tamil Nadu contained in G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 30.08.2019, G.O.Ms.No.480, dated 11.09.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.567, dated 17.09.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 5 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
3. The petitioner is an association working for the general welfare and upliftment of its members who are poor residents of the Bethel Nagar area. The subject matter land is situated in Injambakkam village which is a traditional coastal village, having agricultural activities. The members of the petitioner association settled in the above Survey No.282/2 more than twenty years ago and started living peacefully. They have been provided with all the basic amenities such as electricity supply, Ration Card, Aadhar Card, gas connection and Voter Identity Card and their houses are assessed to property tax, water tax and streets have been formed and street lights are provided and they have all the other residential proofs such as Aadhar Cards, Driving Licenses, bank accounts etc., from the above address to prove their continuous long and recognised possession.
4. While so, the association, which was formed in the year 1997 and prior to that the individual residents, started approaching the respondents/authorities to grant patta by assigning the respective lands for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 6 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 the residents who have occupied minimum extent of land and built their houses etc. By an order, dated 23.10.2008 passed by the fifth respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai directed the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, the ninth respondent herein, to examine the petitions submitted on behalf of the members of the petitioner association and to survey the land and directed sending of a detailed report with relevant documents and the village accounts. Thereafter, by a letter, dated 10.02.2009 of the Assembly Secretariat, the fifth respondent was informed that the Estimate Committee recommended to conduct full inspection and full survey with respect to the land comprised in S.No.282/2 being grazing land poramboke, Injambakkam where 90 persons are residing in the area known as Bethel Nagar and to take action to issue patta to them by duly passing resolution through the panchayat and through the district administration.
5. The Assembly Secretariat further issued a communication, dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 7 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 29.10.2009 reminding the earlier recommendation of the Estimate Committee. Further the said authority also, by its letter, dated 03.12.2009, directed District Collector, Kanchipuram, namely seventh respondent herein to take action on the matter of issue of patta to the residents of Bethel Nagar. A reply was sent by the fifth respondent on 17.12.2009 which stated that in respect of grant of house site pattas to 90 families out of 452 families who are residing at Bethel Nagar in meikkal poramboke S.No.282/2, a report will be submitted during the course of review meeting of the Estimate Committee. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, the eleventh respondent, by his communication, dated 13.04.2010, had stated that already census of the particulars, in regard to the persons who have made encroachments, have been made and recommendations for issue of free housing pattas to 90 persons residing in S.No.282/2 has already been made to the District Collector and the clarification in respect of few individual beneficiaries there being furnished by the said communication. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 8 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
6. By a communication, dated 03.05.2010 of the Assembly Secretariat, dissatisfaction of the Estimate Committee was communicated to the Commissioner of Land Administration as pattas were not issued on or before 25.11.2008 as was required by the Committee. An order was passed by the District Collector, Kanchipuram, the seventh respondent herein on 10.05.2010, whereby, it was stated that out of the total extent of 20.78.0 hectares of meikkal poramboke in S.No.282/2, a total area of 09344 Sq.mts to be converted and reclassified as natham and to be given as housing patta for 88 persons and the land value was fixed at Rs.500/- per Sq.ft and it was ordered that the remaining land to be maintained as meikkal poramboke.
7. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur was requested to issue housing patta for 88 persons. Pursuant thereto, upon receipt of a report from the Tahsildar, the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, by his communication, dated 28.07.2010 to the fifth respondent, informed about the proposal received from the Tahsildar that the land has been converted and reclassified as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 9 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 natham to an extent of 09344 Sq.mts and an order was issued to issue housing plots for eligible 88 persons. By his communication, dated 22.10.2010, the fifth respondent informed the Assembly Secretariat that as per the directives of the Estimate Committee, the process of issue of assignment order has been undertaken and it was informed that the copy of the report of the District Revenue Officer was sent to the Government.
8. Thereafter, by his communication, dated 28.02.2011, the eleventh respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, felt that the proposal may also require diverting of Buckingham Canal which is near to the survey number and therefore, sought the opinion of the Public Works Department. Once again, by another communication, dated 11.01.2018, the fifth respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Land Administration wrote to the District Collector directing him to submit a report as to the request of 435 residents who are represented by the petitioner association and to inform the details of action taken to the said office.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 10 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
9. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 30.08.2019 whereby it enabled the Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Administration to even consider the objectionable encroachments in grazing land/mandaiveli, to consider for issue of house site patta taking into consideration public welfare, but, after consulting the Animal Husbandary Department, subject to the rules and regulations, the encroachments can be regularised. This special scheme, which is framed by the Government, is further extended by the later G.O.Ms.No.480, dated 11.09.2020. Thereafter, again by G.O.Ms.No.567, dated 17.09.2021 the special scheme is extended further for a period of one year upto 31.08.2022.
10. Under these circumstances, the petitioner association made a detailed representation on 13.09.2019 to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Principle Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 11 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Commissioner of Land Administration, the District Collector, Chennai, Revenue Divisional Officer, Guindy, Chennai and the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk by referring to all the above communications and the G.Os mentioned above and prayed that free house site pattas to be issued to the 860 families residing in S.No.282/2 as per the scheme contained in G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 30.08.2019. Since there is no positive response on behalf of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed.
11. When the above Writ Petition came up for hearing before this Court on 04.02.2022, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court adjourned the matter so as to enable the learned Counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions from his client as to whether they are willing to vacate the land if suitable alternative site is allotted in accordance with law. However, during the subsequent hearings, no such undertaking was forthcoming and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing on merits and is now being decided.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 12 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
12. Heard Mr.R.Anandha Babu, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 7 and 9, 11 and 13, 14, Mrs.J.Karthika Ashok, Standing Counsel for respondents 8 and 12.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the various communications referred above and made the following submissions:-
13.1. In the instant case, pursuant to the various proceedings, already reclassification of the land has been done by the Collector and therefore, the portion of the Survey No.282/2 ad-measuring 09344 Sq.mts cannot still be considered meikkal poramboke/grazing land and therefore, the Government is entitled to issue patta to the beneficiaries;
13.2. The policy decision has been taken by the Government to regularise the encroachments in Bethel Nagar and therefore, they have to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 13 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 consider the representation made by the petitioner association in the light of the policy decision;
13.3. As far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, by G.O.Ms.No.318, which is being extended, the Government of Tamil Nadu is entitled to reclassify and allot house site pattas in respect of meikkal poramboke by maintaining additional land as meikkal poramboke, with due permission of the Animal Husbandry Department and therefore, the Public Interest Litigation filed by the third party and the order thereon, passed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs. State of Gujarat (Civil Appeal No.5135/2021, dated 06.09.2021), is incorrect in the instant case as the grazing lands in the State of Tamil Nadu have been in a unique and different position.
13.4. The members of the petitioner association are poor and have been in continuous and uninterrupted occupation for more than 20 years and it would cause grave hardship to evict or relocate them while no hardship whatsoever will be caused by granting them patta in the present place of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 14 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 living itself.
14. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments :
14.1. Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 27.06.2016 in W.P.No.13412 of 2013 in K.Venkatachalam Vs. The District Collector and Ors., which referred to the fact in paragraph No.7 that certain grazing sites were converted as housing sites.
14.2. In W.P.No.9815 of 2018 in A.Jayaragini and Ors., Vs. The District Collector and Ors., which also relate to the case in which grazing poramboke was assigned by way of patta.
14.3. In Gopinath and Anr. Vs. District Revenue Officer and Ors., ((1998) 2 MLJ 15) wherein after considering the hard labour and investment made by the petitioners in the grazing land, the Government authorities were directed to issue orders of assignment of patta.
14.4. In P.Rajendran Vs. The District Collector and Ors., in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 15 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 W.P.No.40810 of 2015, wherein a claim for right on the grazing land was negatived on the ground that the same was converted and allotted as house site pattas for Burma refugees.
14.5. In Govindammal and Ors., Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.22579 of 2017) whereby in respect of meikkal poramboke land, this Court directed the Commissioner of Land Administration to entertain Revision Petition and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
14.6. In P.Dakshinamoorthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.31303 of 2018) whereby conversion of the mandhaiveli poramboke land for the purpose of establishing a Court complex was allotted with a direction that alternate extent of land should be converted and provided.
14.7. In S.Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.16636 of 2016) which relate to uprooting of trees within the combined Court complex, Dharmapuri, which lands were originally classified as meikkal pormaboke.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 16 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 14.8. In T.Ramesh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.9441 of 2013) whereby the fact as to the grazing poramboke land was transferred to Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department for construction of Primary Health Centre was recorded.
14.9. In T.Chinnadurai Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and Ors., (W.P.(MD) No.5047 of 2018), wherein this Court approved the location of College in meikkal poramboke.
14.10. In Water Bodies and Environment Protection Welfare Sangam, Selaiyur Vs. The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, Tambaram and Ors., (W.A.No.2591 of 2012) wherein, in respect of location of pump house in mandhaiveli poramboke, this Court directed to consider the pros and cons of the proposed construction and take a decision in that regard.
14.11. In S.Nandakumar Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.10641 of 2009 etc.,), a portion of the grazing land was used as compost yard in which the Writ Petition was disposed of with a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 17 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 direction to the concerned Panchayat and the Municipalities to approach the Environmental Impact Authority and obtain Solid Waste Management Plan.
14.12. In Anbarasu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.24199 of 2019), wherein this Court approved the location of compost yard in meikkal poramboke.
14.13. In Keppan Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy and Ors., in (W.P.(MD).No.8307 of 2018), wherein this Court approved the transfer of the land, which is shown as mandhaiveli, to other department for making construction.
14.14. In R.Gopi Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram and Ors., (W.P.No.16814 of 2021) for the fact that the temple's possession of a grazing land was considered and direction was issued to consider issue of patta in the name of the temple.
14.15. In J.Soundararajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.4262 of 2021) when a petition was filed seeking to prevent the conversion of lands which were classified as mandhaiveli poramboke, this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 18 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision.
14.16. In R.Subramanyam Vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur and Ors., in W.P.No.14466 of 2021, wherein this Court directed to consider the representation when a complaint was made that mandhai (grazing lands) were being used to construct a Police Station.
14.17. In G.Subbulakshmi Vs. The Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandary Dept. and Ors., (W.P.No.3936 of 2015), in a Public Interest Litigation filed not to use the grazing land for another purpose, wherein this Court directed consideration of representation by the respondents.
14.18. In another Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.37014 of 2016 in K.Kalisamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., wherein similar direction to consider the representation was granted against converting mandhaiveli pormaboke land.
14.19. In M.Manikandan Vs. The District Collector, District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 19 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Collectorate, Thanjavur in W.P.(MD).No.13422 of 2018, wherein it was submitted that the encroachers of mandhaveli poramboke are to be evicted, but, however, the respondents were directed to make provision for their pathway.
14.20. In G.Sekar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (W.P.No.6022 of 2021), wherein the land which was originally classified as meikkal poramboke was reclassified as grama natham.
14.21. In M.Radha Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., in W.P.No.15737 of 2020, wherein the land was originally classified as meikkal poramboke was converted as housing site and reclassified as grama natham.
14.22. In P.A.Francis Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., (W.P.No.20283 of 2008 etc.,) wherein the land classified as grazing ground poramboke was alienated for construction of ten sheds.
14.23. In J.Mathiaas Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District and Anr., (W.P.(MD).No.11815 of 2015), wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioner for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 20 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 issuance of patta to him in respect of meikkal poramboke land.
14.24. In S.Shanmuganathan Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai and Ors., in W.P.(MD).No.16260 of 2021, wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioner wherein he prayed for patta in respect of grazing land occupied by him.
14.25. In Jayarani Vs. The District Collector, Chengalpattu Collector Office, Chengalpattu District and Ors., in W.P.No.18245 of 2021, wherein, by quoting G.O.Ms.No.318, this Court directed the respondent to conduct an enquiry and to take a decision to grant house site to the petitioner who was in occupation of the meikkal poramboke land.
14.26. In K.Venkatesan Vs. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District and Ors., in W.P.No.19719 of 2014, wherein a prayer was made to remove all the illegal encroachments made in meikkal poramboke land, the Court approved the order of the District Collector to maintain an area of 13.36 acres as meikkal poramboke even while restricting the occupation of S.T people and others to an area of 3.00 acres. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 21 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 14.27. In B.Dharmalingam Vs. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Ors., in W.P.No.9860 of 2017, wherein it is noticed that vide G.O.Ms.No.101 Revenue & Disaster Management Department, dated 15.04.2019, the Government reclassified the meikkal poramboke land for an extent of 1.56.3 hectares as house sites upon collection of land costs by virtue of its powers under RSO 24 and therefore, the Court directed issue of patta to the petitioner.
Thus, by relying upon all the judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to press home the proposition that it is a regular phenomenon that meikkal poramboke lands are being converted for other use subject to the satisfaction of the conditions of the Government and therefore, the petitioner's representation is to the Government to decide the matter within its powers and therefore, he would impress upon this Court that the respondents should be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with the Government orders mentioned above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 22 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. The issue in question is no longer res integra as this Court in respect of the very area, namely Bethel Nagar, i.e., S.No.282/2, Injambakkam village, had considered the issue in detail by the judgment dated 07.04.2022 in W.P.No.33684 of 2018 etc., and after considering all the relevant Government orders and the judgment of the Apex Court in Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs. State of Gujarat (stated supra), has concluded that the meikkal poramboke land, in the instant case, cannot be permitted to be converted and allotted as a house site. It is essential to extract paragraph Nos.17 to 22 of the said judgment, which is as follows:-
“17. The petitioners have made the prayer for issuance of patta for the land occupied by them without showing their right to get patta in respect of the land. They made reference of the order passed by the District Collector on 10.5.2010 to show reclassification of the land making it available for issuance of patta for residential purpose. However, as per RSO 21(6) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 23 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, the issuance of pattas to eligible persons pursuant to the reclassification can only be upon issuance of specific orders by the Government. At this juncture, it is apt to reproduce RSO 21(6) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, which reads as under:
“RSO 21(6). Extension of village site: - When the existing village sites is not sufficient for the needs of the resident villagers the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to transfer the assessed waste to village site poramboke. The proposals for conversion of water courses/sources, grazing ground cattle stand and burial ground should be sent to the Government through the Commissioner of Land Administration after personal inspection by the Collector/District Revenue Officer. Only on receipt of specific orders from the Government, eligible persons could be given pattas. In other cases, where the lands are vested in the Municipality/Panchayat the opinion of the concerned local body should be obtained. Subject to this, the Collector is competent to transfer the classification of all un-objectionable Government lands to village site. They may effect such transfers and additions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 24 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 on their own authority, subject to provisions in 15(1 (3) except in the case of assessed land which is not at the disposal of Government and which must be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act."
[emphasis supplied]
18. It is amply clear from the aforesaid Standing Order that it is only the government which has the authority to take the decision for conversion of land. There is nothing on record which gives an inkling that orders have been passed by the government for conversion of land and issuance of pattas to eligible persons. In the absence of such an order passed by the Government, the proceedings of the District Collector reclassifying the land cannot be taken to be legal. Rather it is beyond his competence, thus to be treated as illegal. The said finding is further substantiated by the classification of the land recorded in the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1905 as "Meikkal", which means grazing. Therefore, as per the revenue records, as on date, the land is recorded as grazing ground and change in classification of such land may not be permissible. The said view is fortified by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat, [Civil Appeal No.5135/2021, dated 6.9.2021], which dealt with encroachment on gauchar land, i.e., grazing land. The Apex Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 25 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 emphatically held that the grazing land should be used only for the purpose for which it is permitted and no encroachment on such land is permissible.
The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
“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.” [emphasis supplied] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 26 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
19. Inasmuch as the classification of the land remains to be grazing ground in the revenue records, even as per the notice dated 23.9.2021 issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1905, and in the light of the law enunciated in the decision in Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari v. The State of Gujarat, supra, the usage of the land cannot be contrary to what is permitted, i.e., as grazing ground. The petitioners or the members of the association are rank encroachers. We do not wish to traverse into the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that many members of the association are subsequent purchasers of the land and not the occupiers of the land from the beginning, as whether the members of the petitioner association are original encroachers or subsequent purchasers would not make any difference, inasmuch the land is classified as grazing ground and there is no change in user till date.
20. Apropos the claim of the petitioners to regularise their illegal occupation by issuance of pattas, it is appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joginder v. State of Haryana, (2021) 3 SCC 300, wherein it has been emphatically held as under:
"13. It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 27 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 regularization. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization. .....
14. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court had come down heavily upon such trespassers who have illegally encroached upon on the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat Land by using muscle powers/money powers and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. In the said decision, this Court has observed that "such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned". It is further observed that "even if there is a construction the same is required to be removed and the possession of the land must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat". It is further observed that "regularizing such illegalities must not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 28 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of the villagers of the village". Thereafter, this Court has issued the following directions:
'23. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/ Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 29 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.' In view of the above also, the prayer of the Petitioners for regularization of their illegal occupation of the panchayat land cannot be accepted."
[emphasis supplied]
21. The decision in Joginder v. State of Haryana, supra, reiterated the view enunciated in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC
396. In terms of the directions contained in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, supra, it is the bounden duty of the State Government concerned to ensure restoration of such lands for the common use of villagers of the village concerned. The State Government is obligated to make earnest efforts to restore every piece of illegally occupied land which would fall within the orders and directions issued in the case of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 30 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, supra.
22. Unchecked encroachment of government land has vastly reduced the area which was reserved in the interest of public and ecological balance. It is the bounden-duty of the officials of the Revenue Department to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes. Indisputably, such encroachments could not have taken place without the knowledge of the respondent authorities. It is a case where till the initiation of the contempt proceedings the respondent authorities acted in cahoots with the encroachers, rather than taking earnest efforts to protect the government land. It is trite that when a person is a rank encroacher without any valid right or title over the land belonging to the government, the court should not permit or protect the continued illegal occupation of the land. That apart, the court will never lend its aid to a person whose case is based on an illegal act, like encroachment in the case on hand.” Therefore, the petitioner's representation is once again for the same purpose and therefore, cannot be directed to be considered.
16. From the instances narrated by the learned Counsel for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 31 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 petitioner, it may be true that there were incidents where the Government has been reclassifying the meikkal poramboke lands and allotted to other purpose. But, however, considering the dwindling nature of the meikkal poramboke land, when an authoritative pronouncement has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it will not be open for the petitioner to contend that the same will not be binding in respect of the State of Tamil Nadu just because there is a Government Order framing a special scheme. It is pertinent to state here that even in the Government orders, encroachments in meikkal poramboke lands have always been considered as objectionable encroachments.
17. This apart, the petitioner's contention, that by virtue of the order of the District Collector, there was re-classification, is absolutely untenable. Disposal of the said land is dealt with as far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned under RSO 24 and as per the same, the Government alone is the appropriate authority and any communication of the Collector purportedly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 32 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 reclassifying or allotting or otherwise disposing of the land is void ab initio and will be without jurisdiction. In respect of the voluminous correspondences filed before this Court it can be seen that every time, only at the instance of the Assembly Secretariat , correspondences have been made albeit there was no order of the appropriate authorities either reclassifying the land or granting assignment patta in favour of any individual whatsoever. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any order of the Government in the instant case either reclassifying S.No.282/2 or the order of the appropriate authority assigning the land to any person whatsoever inspite of specific query raised by this Court in that regard. The inter-office communications between District Collector, District Revenue Officer, Tahsildar, Commissioner of Land Administration, Assembly Secretariat etc., will not create any right whatsoever on the part of the encroachers and therefore, there is no vested right on the part of the petitioner association or its members to claim patta merely because a recommendation has been made by the Tahsildar or the Collector. Even https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 33 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 otherwise, the State of Tamil Nadu is also bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above referred judgment in Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari (stated supra) and it cannot reclassify or convert meikkal poramboke into housing sites.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Intellectuals Forum Vs. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549 had laid down the 'pubic trust doctrine' that the State holds all the public lands on the basis of public trust doctrine and it has no right to change the natural/traditional use of the public land and therefore, the Government cannot fritter away or dispose off the poramboke lands in any manner whatsoever, rather, the specialised porambokes such as water bodies, meikkal poramboke have to be preserved for the purpose for which they have been earmarked and assisgnments of lands if any to the poor or needy can be granted only in the non-objectionable encroachments or poramboke lands in which the purpose of housing can be permitted. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 34 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 “76. The Supreme Court of California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country [33 Cali 419] also known as Mono Lake case [33 Cali 419] summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:
“Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.” This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources [Joseph L. Sax https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 35 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970) pp. 471- 566]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:
1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;
3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.” (Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are without any merits.
19. As narrated by us supra, the petitioner has pressed into service and relied upon various judgments mentioned above, which are not in any manner authoritative for the proposition that the Government can convey the meikkal poramboke lands as house sites, but, rather the instances whereunder meikkal poramboke land has been reclassified or converted, that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 36 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 too prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari (stated supra) case. In no case, the questions, as arising in the present case, are raised and considered and answered, so as to be ratio for the proposition as to the government's free right to convert meikal poromboke or the occupants right to claim assignment patta. Wherever the phrase 'meikkal poramboke' was found, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments and the some of the judgments also direct to consider the representation to remove the encroachments from meikkal poramboke. Thus, we hold that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner does not in any manner serve the purpose of petitioner association.
20. The prayer of the petitioner association is to direct the respondents to consider its representation so that the state can reclassify the meikkal poramboke land and allot house sites to the encroachers. The same cannot be permitted and an illegal prayer made in the representation cannot be directed to be considered by the Government and no such Mandamus can be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 37 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 issued.
21. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.1891 of 2022 and 1895 of 2022 are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.) 27.04.2022 Index : Yes Speaking order grs To
1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 38 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022
3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principle Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
4. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principle Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government/ Commissioner of Land Administration, Commissionerate of Land Administration, A.C.S/C.L.A, P.W.D Estate, Ezhilagam Building, Fourth Floor, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
6. The District Collector, Chennai District, Collectorate, Singaravelar Maaligai, Fourth Floor, No.62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
7. The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Office of the District Collector, Collectorate, Kanchipuram – Vandavasi Road, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 39 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Kanchipuram – 631 501.
8. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
9. The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram District, Office of the District Collector, Collectorate, Kanchipuram – Vandavasi Road, Kanchipuram – 631 501.
10. The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Anna Salai, Guindy, (Near the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University) Chennai – 600 032.
11. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, st No.1, 1 Cross Street, New Kumaran Nagar, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
12. The Assistant Commissioner, Greater Chennai City Corporation Zonal-XV, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
13. The Revenue Inspector, Sholinganallur Firka, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 40 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 Nedunchezian Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
14. The Village Administrative Officer, No.14, Injambakkam village, Dr.Nanjunda Rao Road, Injambakkam, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai – 600 115.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 41 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.
grs W.P.No.1738 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 42 of 43 W.P.No.1738 of 2022 27.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 43 of 43