Alagarsamy vs The District Collector & Ors.

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the fourth respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in occupation of the land comprised in new S.No.291/21, which is classified as “Gramanatham Kali Idam”. The respondent, without jurisdiction, has issued an eviction notice to the petitioner. Challenging the said eviction notice, the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is the owner of the adjacent patta land and that a portion of the subject property forms part of the Natham property, which has been in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for more than a decade. It is submitted that the petitioner had put up a compound wall for protecting the property and that the same has been objected to by the general public as well as the revenue authorities. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is the owner of a larger extent of patta land situated adjacent to the subject property and has encroached upon the Gramanatham Kali Idam classified land to an extent of 0.00.98.0 square metres. It is further submitted that the subject land is meant for public use and therefore, the petitioner has no right to occupy or put up any construction therein.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

The principal contention of the petitioner is that the subject land is classified as “Gramanatham Kali Idam” and that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for several years. However, merely because the land is classified as Gramanatham Kali Idam, the petitioner cannot claim an absolute right to occupy the same, particularly when the respondents contend that the land is intended for public use. It is not in dispute that the petitioner owns the adjacent patta land. The allegation of the respondents is that, apart from the patta land owned by the petitioner, he has encroached upon the adjoining land classified as Gramanatham Kali Yadam and has put up a compound wall therein. Whether the compound wall has been put up within the petitioner's patta land or whether it extends into the land classified as Gramanatham Kali Idam is essentially a matter which requires proper identification and measurement of the subject property. Furthermore, the petitioner is not a landless poor person and the subject land is not unoccupied Natham land, rather, it is meant for general public use. Hence, the petitioner has no right to occupy the said land.

In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to survey and measure the subject property with reference to the relevant revenue records and the petitioner's title documents, after issuing due notice to the petitioner. If, upon such survey and measurement, it is found that the petitioner has encroached upon any portion of the land classified as Gramanatham Kali Idam or any other land intended for public use, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action for removal of such encroachment in accordance with law, after following due process.

With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.