AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition on behalf of 23 Dalit Christian Families for a direction on the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise their possession of lands in Survey No. 11, Moovanoor Ukkadai village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudhukkottai District, as per G.O.Ms. No. 854, Revenue (Perm)1(2) Department, dated 30th December, 2006, they being in possession and enjoyment of the lands for more than 25 years.
It is stated that though as per G.O.Ms. No. 854, dated 30th December, 2006, issued from Revenue (Perm)1(2) Department of the State, they are entitled for regularisation of their settlement by grant of patta in regard to the lands in their possession but, no action has been taken by the respondents. However, on the other hand, the 5th respondent issued notices to all the families individually on 13th November, 2007 under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu (Protection of Kanmoi and removal of encroachment) Rules, 2007 citing that the lands in their occupation are falling within the boundaries of Survey No. 11 which is demarcated as Pakkam Eri (Water Bound Area). It is stated that earlier the Revenue Authorities had issued similar notices in July, 2007 but the said proceeding was dropped. But, subsequently, similar notices were issued. Further case of the petitioner is that the 23 Dalit Christian Families are not in a position to move separately and therefore the petitioner has moved in public interest highlighting their cause. The respective families have pattas in their favour which have been shown to the respondents and brought to their notice that the lands which occupied by them are well within the boundaries of Survey No. 1 and no way connected to Survey No. 11. But, inspite of that, the 23 Dalit Families are facing threat of eviction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a confusion in regard to Survey No. 1 and Survey No. 11, which are adjacent to each other. Certain portions of the land are overlapping in both Survey Nos. 1 and 11, including the land on which many of the 23 families are residing for which they have been granted patta by the State.
The case of the respondents is that the land in occupation of the 23 families are in Survey No. 11 and the Taluk Suveyor has already made a survey and found that the 23 families are occupying the land in Survey No. 11 and not in Survey No. 1.
This Court on 03.07.2008 directed the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai District, to make a spot inspection of Rettaiyalam and Moovanur Ukkadai Villages and submit a report. Pursuant to the said direction, the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, visited the said villages on 14.07.2008 and submitted a report, enclosing a rough plan prepared by the Surveyors of Revenue Department, as per his direction. In the Report, the names and other details of the occupants have been shown as follows:
1) S. Kamal (Writ Petitioner)
2) Devaraj S/o. Sebastian - Occupant No. 1
3) Rajakanni W/o. Sebastian - Occupant No. 2
4) Rejina Meri W/o. Vedhanayagam No. 3
5) Ubaharam S/o. Francis No. 4
Philip S/o. Thethoni No. 5
Ubaharam S/o. Gaberial No. 7
Margeret W/o. Sekaraj No. 8
Rajendran S/o. Thanislos No. 9
Savariammal W/o. Pilavendran No. 10
A. Genova Meri W/o. Anthonisamy No. 11
Arulandu S/o. Singaram No. 12
Adaikkalaraj S/o. Soosaimanickam No. 13
Thanishmery W/o. Soosai Manickam No. 14
Kumar S/o. Singaraj No. 15
Silvester F/o. Jothibasu No. 16
Masilamani Son-in-law of Salthmery No. 17
A. Pankaran H/o. Kavian Mery No.18
Pankaraj S/o. Amburose No. 19
Simon S/o. Mariet No. 20
Simeon S/o. Santiago No. 21
Manuvel S/o. Santiago No. 22
Arulandu S/o. Thethoni No. 23
1) Mrs. Maria Thangam W/o. Aseehar, Occupant No. 6
was absent and nobody represented her.
The Principal District Judge has enclosed a copy of the rough plan prepared by the Surveyors of the Revenue Department, as per his direction, along with his report. The gist of the report of the District Judge is quoted hereunder.
7) One Devaraj S/o Sebastian, whose name is mentioned as No. 2 in this report, represented that the plan produced by the Revenue Officials is not a correct one and he requested to take measurement as per the plan prepared in the year 1955 at the time of settlement. I have measured the property as per the plan kept by the Revenue Officials.
8) The center black colour line shown in the plan has been mentioned in my report as center line. It is alleged by the Revenue people that the patta has been granted on the Northern side of the said center line upto Rettaiyalam Ery, which is shown in yellow colour. But, the 23 people mentioned in the Annexure list of the Writ Petition represented that the patta has been granted on the Southern side of the Rettaiyalam Ery bund.
Thereafter, the learned Principal District Judge has discussed with regard to each Survey Number from Survey No. 1/1 to Survey No. 1/28 and Survey No. 11. From the aforesaid Report of the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, it appears that the 23 occupants are occupying land to the extent of their patta in survey No. 1.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no finding of fact can be arrived on the basis of the Report of the Principal District Judge, as it is a matter to be determined by the State and its authorities.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the pleadings made and the report submitted, we find that there is a conflicting report one given by the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai and the other submitted by the concerned Tahsildar. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that already pattas have been issued in favour of 23 Dalit Christian Families, we are neither inclined to give any direction to regularise their possession over any other Survey Number (Survey No. 11) nor inclined to decide the question of fact. However, we are of the opinion that the respondents, when there is a question of disputed fact, cannot evict the families by way of summary proceedings, though it is open to them to move the civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. It is further made clear that if a civil court of competent jurisdiction gives any finding in respect of the land occupied by one or other members of the 23 families in question that they are occupying land in Survey No. 11, in such a case, it will be open to the 23 families to ask for regularisation of their possession as per O.Ms. No. 854, Revenue (Perm)1(2) Department, dated 30th December, 2006, if it is not shown as water body.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation but, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 is closed.