Madras High Court
Ganesan @ Palanisamy vs The District Collector on 17 April, 2017
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD)No.9731 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
Ganesan @ Palanisamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Pudukottai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukottai District.
3.Kamatchi Ammal
4.The Special District Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquistion),
National Highways, Trichy. .. Respondents
R4 is suo moto impleaded vide
the order of the Court dated 16.03.2017
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.D3/12843/2010 dated 21.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently
direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in
the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.62/3 of Viralimalai Village.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
^For Respondents 1,2 and 4 : Mr.S.Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 3 : Mr.N.Ravishankar Vallatharsu
:ORDER
The Petitioner challenges the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, in and by which, he had directed correction of the mistake that was committed during the UDR survey in respect of two sub divisions in T.S.No.62 of Viralimalai Village.
2.The facts leading to the said proceedings are as follows:-
2(i).The third respondent, namely Kamatchi Ammal, had purchased an extent of 0.13.5 hectares equivalent to 33 cents of land in T.S.No.62/1 of Viralimalai Village along with Well, electricity service connection etc., from M/s. S.P.Shanmugam and others under a registered sale deed, dated 06.04.1967.
2(ii).The petitioner herein, had purchased an extent of 0.09.5 hectares equivalent to 23 cents in T.S.No.62/3 from Elumalai and Shanmugam under the sale deed, dated 29.10.2009.
2(iii).The said Elumalai and Shanmugam had purchased an extent of 1.04.5 hectares equivalent to 2 acres and 58 cents under the sale deed, dated 10.07.1996, from G.Mathanlal, S/o. Kansamdoss. The description of the land purchased by the vendors of the petitioner under the sale deed, dated 10.07.1996 shows that, it is situated in two survey numbers, comprising of an extent of 0.95.0 hectares in T.S.No.60/5 and 0.09.5 hectares in T.S.No.62/3. Description of property in the said sale deed is as follows, ?nrhj;Jtpguk; : GJf;Nfhl;il khtl;lk; gjpT khtl;lk;> Fsj;Jhh; jhYfh> tpuhypkiy rg;b Adpad;> tpuhypkiy fpuhk Cuhl;rp vy;iff;Fs;gl;l> tpuhypkiy fpuhkk;> GQ;ir Gy vz;. (UDR rh;Nt) 60/5 (mWgJ eph; Ie;J yl;lh;)y; ncwf;lh;]; 0.95.0f;F Vf;fh; 2.35 nrd;l;> GQ;ir Gy vz;. (UDR rh;Nt) 62/3 (mWgj;jp ,uz;L eph;> Kd;W yl;lh;)y; ncwf;lh;]; 0.09.5f;F nrz;L 0.23 Mf $Ljy; GQ;ir ncwf;lh;]; 1.04.5f;F Vf;fh; 2.58 nrz;l; cs;s GQ;ir epyk; ,e;j fpua rhrdj;jpy; fl;Lg;gl;lJ MFk;. Nkw;gb Vf;fh; 2.58 nrz;Lk; xNu Nrfukha; cs;sjpd; ehd;F vy;iffs; tpguk; : ts;spag;gd; tifawh GQ;irf;Fk;> jq;fsJ GQ;irf;Fk; fpof;F Nfhtpy;> uh.godpak;khs;> uh.rNuh[h tifawh GQ;irfSf;F njw;F K.jq;fNty; tifawh GQ;irf;F Nkw;F> fpoNty;> Cuhl;rp Nuhl;bw;Fk; thhpf;Fk; tlf;F ,jw;Fs; Nkw;gb Vf;fh; 2.58 nrz;L cs;s GQ;ir epyk; mlq;fp cs;sJ.?
;
3.From the above description of the property, it could be seen that the land comprised in T.S.Nos.60/5 and 62/3 purchased by the vendors of the petitioner are in one block, i.e., adjacent to each other. It appears that during the UDR Survey, the sub division numbers got interchanged and the original T.S.No.62/3 purchased by the Vendors of the petitioner consisting of 0.09.5 hectares was shown as T.S.No.62/1 and the original T.S.No.62/1 consisting of 0.13.5 hectares purchased by the 3rd respondent under the sale deed dated 06.04.1967 was shown as T.S.No.62/3.
4.During the year 2005-06, certain lands were acquired for the purpose of the expansion of National Highway - NH45B (Trichy ? Viralimalai ? Melur - Madurai division). The mistake that had occurred in the UDR proceedings, was followed in the land acquisition proceedings also and the land in T.S.No.62/1 measuring 0.09.5 hectares which was intended to be acquired, was shown as land in T.S.No.62/3 and the name of the owner was also shown as that of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, upon receipt of the compensation, had returned the same to the authorised officer, who had passed the award. Thereafter she made enquires and found that the mistake had been committed while recording the Survey Numbers in the Field Measurement Book during the UDR survey and approached the District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, for correction.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, has also after going through the sale deeds has found that the National Highway is actually formed in T.S.No.62/3 (wrongly shown as 62/1). Though, an extent of 0.09.5 hectares in T.S.No.62/3 is shown to be acquired for the purpose of National Highway, this has happened because of the mistake committed by the revenue officers during the UDR Scheme. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer had ordered that T.S.No.62/1 measuring an extent of order 0.09.5 hectares should be changed as T.S.No.62/3 and what is shown as T.S.No.62/3 measuring an extent of 0.13.5 hectares should be changed as T.S.No.62/1. It is this proceeding directing correction of the FMB, that is challenged in this writ petition.
6.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this correction has been carried out by the District Revenue Officer,Pudukottai, only with a view to help the 3rd respondent.
7.I had directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to produce the original Field Measurement Book as well as the Registers. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has produced the sale deed as well as the old FMB. In the old FMB issued in the year 1980 as well as in the year 1966, the portion of the land in which the National Highway has been formed now, is shown as T.S.No.62/3 and the land purchased by Kamatchi Ammal which is in South West corner of T.S.No.62 is shown as T.S.No.62/1.
8.A copy of the sale deed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner, dated 10.07.1996, has also been produced. It clearly shows that the land in T.S.No.60/5 measuring an extent of 0.95.0 hectares equivalent to 2 acres 35 cents and the land in T.S.No.62/3 measuring 0.09.5 hectares equivalent to 23 cents, in all measuring 1.04.5 hectares equivalent to 2.58 acres is situated in one block. From the FMB produced, it is clear that T.S.No.60 is situated on the North of T.S.No.62/3 (which was wrongly shown as T.S.No.62/1 in UDR).
9.Thus, it could be seen that the vendors of the petitioner have purchased the land which is actually situated on the South of T.S.No.60, whereas the land purchased by the 3rd respondent Kamatchi Ammal is no-where near T.S.No.60. It is on the South Western extrimity of T.S.No.62. This fact by itself would show that the plea of mistake raised by the District Revenue Officer as well as the 3rd respondent is justified.
10.Apart from the above, the land purchased by the 3rd respondent is also shown to have a Well, whereas in the sale deed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner, there is no Well in the schedule of property. However, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, dated 29.10.2009, contains the recital to the effect that there is a Well in the property conveyed. This is just an attempt to relate the property to the property owned by Kamatchi Ammal which has been wrongly entered as T.S.No.62/3.
11.Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Hence this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12.However, now that it has come to light that the National Highway - NH45B has been laid on the land purchased by the petitioner under the sale deed, dated 29.10.2009. The acquisition proceedings have been wrongly initiated proceeded against the 3rd respondent. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to make a claim with the National Highway Authority seeking compensation or to take appropriate proceedings against his vendors.
13.If the petitioner chooses to make a claim, the National Highway Authority is directed to consider the claim sympathetically, in the light of the fact that they have already laid a road in the petitioner's land, on the pretext that it belongs to the 3rd respondent.
With the above liberty to the petitioner, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in MP(MD)No.1 of 2010 is also closed. No Costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukottai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District.
3.The Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquistion), National Highways, Trichy..