Madras High Court
Pinnath Thevar vs / on 3 December, 2020
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.03.2025
Delivered on : 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.2284 of 2021
Pinnath Thevar ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District, Theni.
2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate /
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.R.Vadivel ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.
17766/2017/D4 dated 03.12.2020 and quash the same.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
for Mr.K.Govindarajan
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya
Government Advocate for R1&2
: Mr.Tha.Kanagamuthu for R3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.17766/2017/D4 dated 03.12.2020.
2. I have heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Tha.Kanagamuthu, learned counsel for the third respondent.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in survey Nos.1541, 1542 and 1543/2 measuring total extent of 2 Hectares 9 Ares situated in Andipatty Bit II Village, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District. According to the petitioner, the properties were purchased by the petitioner's grandfather, 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021 viz., Pinnath Thevar, in the year 1959. He was also issued Nos.2347 and 2043, recognizing his right in the year 1961. After the demise of the grand father of the petitioner, patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner's father, viz., Pavanath Thevar in patta No.1818 and after the demise of the petitioner's father, patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner in patta No.5974. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained electricity connection and also mortgaged the property with the Village Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and subsequently repaid the loan as well.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent without any iota of right started giving trouble to the petitioner in various modes. The third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 347 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, against the petitioner's father for injunction. The said suit was also dismissed in the year 1987. In the year 2013, he gave a petition to the District Collector, Theni, which was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, who conducted an enquiry and closed the complaint on 14.08.2014, finding it to be baseless. Not satisfied with 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021 the same, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2013 against the petitioner and other persons on the file of the District Munsif Court, Andipatty, seeking for declaration and recovery of possession. On contest, the said suit was dismissed on 09.08.2019, on the application taken out by the petitioner for rejection of plaint. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the first respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C, contending that the lands of the petitioner are panchami lands and the same were granted by the Government in favour of the grandfather of the third respondent, however, during UDR Scheme patta was wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner's predecessor. The third respondent also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13850 of 2011, to restore his alleged possession. The said writ petition was merely disposed of, directing the authorities to decide the claim of the third respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that UDR scheme was implemented only after the filing of O.S.No.347 of 1982 and therefore, the right of the forefathers of the petitioner to the subject property is out of the zone of being questioned. Though the second respondent passed an order under Section 145 (5) Cr.P.C. and prevented 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021 the petitioner from entering his property, this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 27374 of 2019, came to the rescue of the petitioner and granted stay of the said order. The third respondent filed one more writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.21093 of 2019, seeking cancellation of petitioner's patta, which was also disposed of in the admission stage, directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the above back drop would submit that what the third respondent could not achieve directly, he is now attempting to achieve indirectly through the revenue authorities. He would attack the order impugned in the writ petition as being passed, without proper application of mind and without reference to the various documents that have been relied on by the petitioner. He contends that the entire proceedings were only at the instance of the third respondent, who had lost in all his attempts to grab the petitioner's property. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order has been passed relying on the order of status quo granted in O.S.No.140 of 2013, without noticing the fact that the said suit itself was dismissed, on an application filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021 He would further submit that the petitioner's property is comprised in re-survey Nos.1541, 1542, 1543/2 and even according to the original records available with the first and second respondents, the classification of panchamar lands is only in respect of 1542 and 1543/2 and not 1541. However, in the impugned order, all the survey numbers, viz., 1541, 1542, 1543/2 have been clubbed together and it is directed to remove encroachments in all the survey Nos.1541, 1542, 1543/2.
7. Per contra, Mr.Tha.Kanagamuthu, learned counsel for the contesting third respondent would submit that the third respondent's grandfather, viz., Udaiyar Kudumban was assigned the lands, which were classified as panchamar lands and set apart for depressed class people. He would further contend that his grandfather had orally purchased the subject lands from one Udaiyak Kudumban, who was originally assigned lands by the Government. He would further submit that the petitioner has no iota of right in the subject lands and the civil Court, without considering the panchamar conditions, has rendered contrary findings and that the petitioner is only an encroacher against whom action is to be initiated.
6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
8. Mr.Tha.Kanagamuthu, learned counsel for the third respondent would place reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.17467, 15121 and 15171 of 1996 (VGP Prem Nagar Minariya Kudierupor Nala Sangam V. V.G.P.Housing Private Limited), dated 07.11.2008 and W.P.No.25159 of 2017 (K.Anbukkarasi V. The State of Tamil Nadu), dated 20.09.2023, where this Court held that the lands allotted to members of Scheduled Community were conditional assignments and in the event of any breach of condition,the Government has power to resume such lands. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, more specifically Section 3 (g), which does not permit wrongful occupation or cultivation of land owned by, or in possession, or allotted to, or notified by the competent authority, or to be allotted to the Member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with.
7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
9. Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, would submit that only after perusal of the relevant back records, it was found that the disputed lands in survey Nos. 1541, 1542 and 1543/2 in Mekkilarpatti, Andipatty, Theni District, were classified as “panchamar lands” and the same was allotted to the father of the third respondent, viz., Udaiyar Kudumban and subsequent to his demise, his legal heir, viz., Vellaiyan, and 4 others, including the third respondent were issued assignment pattas even before implementation of the UDR scheme. She would further submit that it is a clear violation of the panchamar condition and the impugned orders have been passed taking into consideration of all relevant factors and the same does not require to be interfered with. She would also pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
11. To satisfy myself with regard to the classification of the lands, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been provided information under the Right To Information Act that these three survey numbers are only “Government Tharisu lands”, I called upon the learned Government Advocate directed to produce all the original records for my perusal. On going through the original records, viz., Adangal, extracts for the years 1960, 1962, 1970, 1981 and 1984, all before UDR survey, I find that the survey No.1541 was never classified as panchamar land at any point of time. However, there are clear entries with regard to two survey Nos. 1542 & 1543/2, classified land as “panchamar land”. As regards the information provided to the petitioner under the Right To Information Act, stating that the survey numbers are all “Government Tharisu land” and not being reflected as “panchamar lands”, it appears that the information has been provided on the basis of the records that stood prior to the assignment in the year 1935. Only in the year 1935, the lands have been classified as panchamar lands and subsequently assignments have been granted to various persons, including Udaiyar Kudumban, under whom the third respondent claims right.
9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
12. However, as between the petitioner and the third respondent, there has been several litigations and the third respondent has not been able to succeed in any of his attempts to question the petitioner's possession and title. Even otherwise the third respondent has not been able to show that he or his predecessor in interest were of in possession of the assigned lands. Therefore, even though the third respondent may have been only a whiste blower, the third respondent cannot get any right in the petition filed by the writ petitioner.
13. Having satisfied that there has been a violation of panchamar conditions, insofar as the survey Nos.1542 and 1543/2, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. It shall be open to the third respondent to take action in accordance with law to resume properties in the occupation of the petitioner of these 2 survey numbers are concerned. Insofar as the survey No.1541, even as per the original records, including the various Adangal extracts that have been produced before me in original, I do not find that the said lands in 1541 have been classified as panchamar lands. Therefore, the impugned order clubbing 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021 all three survey numbers, and directing the encroachments to be removed is clearly unsustainable, insofar as the survey No.1541 is concerned.
14. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the first respondent insofar as survey No.1541 is set aside. Insofar as survey Nos.1542 and 1543/2 is concerned, the order passed by the first respondent is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 28.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
LS
11/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
TO:-
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District,
Theni.
2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate /
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
12/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.2782 of 2021
Dated:
28.03.2025
13/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:19 pm )