Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 ___________ 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.

[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 ___________ 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.

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.