Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.The case of the petitioner is that the land comprised in S.No.119/21 is in his possession and enjoyment by way of oral lease. There was a “Vadi Vaikal” in the said land and the said “Vadi Vaikal” is used to discharge rain water during the rainy season. While so, the original owners of the property appointed the petitioner's brother as their Power Agent on 28.05.2001, for sale of the property and upon receiving sale consideration on 18.06.2001 registered the property in favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.495 of 2010 dated 09.02.2010, thereby, petitioner became the absolute owner of the property in S.No.119/21. While so, the 3rd respondent, after adjudication granted patta in favour of the petitioner on 03.03.2010. However, the petitioner out of fear that he will be dispossessed from the said land, initially filed a Writ Petition in this Court in W.P.No.15349 of 2010, in which the 5th respondent therein filed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis counter-affidavit contending that the property was classified as “Nilaviyal Vaikkal” and that there is an odai, which is being renovated under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and this Court vide its order dated 25.02.2014, issued a direction to the 2nd respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after issuing notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, pursuant to which, the District Revenue Officer/ 7th respondent passed the present impugned order. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that admittedly the said “Vadi Vaikal” belongs to the petitioner and the same was purchased. It is a private “Vadi Vaikal” and does not belong to the Government and earlier, patta was granted to the petitioner. However, the District Revenue Officer without adverting to the basis on which the Tahsildar, had granted patta earlier in favour of the petitioner has held the same to have been passed without authority and held that no patta can be granted in favour of any individual in respect of “Nilaviyal Odai” and the patta was cancelled. The said finding recorded by the District Revenue Officer is not based on the materials https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

7.However, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the said land is classified as “Nilaviyal Vaikkal”, and for the land classified as such, no patta can be granted in favour of any individual and hence, the patta which was issued by the then Deputy Tahsildar in Patta No.191 was recommended to be cancelled and any encroachment made in the “Nilaviyal Odai” was directed to be removed, the order passed cannot be interfered as it is a well considered order. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Civil Court, if he still feels that the land in “Nilaviyal Odai” and belongs to him.