Madras High CourtWP/5310/2022disposed of

Poosamoopar v. The Special Commissioner

2022-03-09Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.5310 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.5397 & 5399 of 2022 1.Poosamoopar 2.Rajangam Poosamoopar 3.Poosamoopar

...Petitioners

Vs.

The Special Commissioner, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi - 606 202.

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi - 606 202.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kallakurichi - 605 202.

The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi District.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property comprised in Sy.No.84, Poosapadi Village, Kallakurichi - 606 201, till such time the appeal dated 28.02.2022 is heard and decided by the 1st respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Vasanth For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandan Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property comprised in Sr.No.84, Poosapadi Village, Kallakurichi - 606 201, till such time the appeal dated 28.02.2022 is heard and decided by the first respondent.

2. In view of the limited relief sought for in this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioners is that, they are the absolute owners of the property comprised in Sr.No.84, Poosapadi Village, Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu - 606 201, measuring an extent of 30 acres 75 cents and the said property is ancestral property and the petitioners are in occupation of the said property and they are cultivating the entire property in Sr.No.84. The petitioners have paid all the property taxes to the authorities concerned and the Patta, adangal, chitta, A-Registrer everything stands in the name of the petitioners and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any hindrance. Further, the case of the petitioners is that, the old Revenue records maintained by the Special Assistant Settlement Officer, Kallakurichi, dated 30.06.1921 indicates that the property in Sr.No.

84 belongs to Maniyam Poosamooppar, Ariyanaachi Ammal, Perumayee Ammal & Poosamoopar who are the ancestors of the petitioners. Further in the year 1983, the Revenue authorities issued the Patta in favour of Annar Poosamoopar and Thambi Poosamoopar vide Patta No.351. Even prior to that, the petitioners' father was granted Patta vide Patta No.52.

4. While such being the position, the petitioners have received notice from the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry before the 3rd respondent with records pertaining to the property in Sr.No.84, pursuant to the complaint made by one R.Durai and one Devaraj, alleging that petitioners have occupied the Panchami land. Accordingly, the meeting was scheduled on 27.12.2021.the petitioners had produced all the records right from 1921 before the 3rd respondent. While so, on 21.02.2022, petitioners received a registered post from the 2nd respondent stating that their property in Sr.No.84 was declared as Lake pursuant to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.12.2021 in Na.Ka.AA6/7396/2021. Aggrieved by the above said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Land Commissioner on 28.02.2022 and the same is pending. However, due to pendency of the appeal,

the Revenue Officials are trying to disturb the petitioners' peaceful possession of the above said properties. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as on date, the petitioners are in occupation of the said land. He further submitted that, though the 3rd respondent claims that the said property is classified as "Lake Poromboke", however, the said land is not a lake and in fact, in the year 1983, Patta was also issued in favour of the petitioners' ancestors and prior to that, Patta was issued in favour of petitioners' father in respect of the above said property. Hence, taking coercive action against the petitioners is not sustainable and he prays that this Court may issue direction to the respondents not to take any action till the disposal of the appeal dated 28.02.2022 pending before the 1st respondent.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that though, the petitioners claim that they made an appeal before the first respondent, however, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an interim application in the appeal before the first respondent and they have to obtain interim order pending appeal. However, without filing an interim application, filing this writ petition before this Court is not sustainable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present Writ petition.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners claim that disputed property is an ancestral property and prior to 1983, the petitioners' ancestors and petitioners' father were granted Patta in their favour in respect of the above said disputed property. However, it is alleged that the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 21.02.2022 mechanically based on the instigation of the local people and has arrived to the conclusion that the land occupied by the petitioners is a "Lake Poromboke".

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the submissions made, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim direction in favour of the petitioners, however, this Court issues direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal itself, dated 28.02.2022 filed by the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and the aggrieved persons if any. The petitioners are at liberty

to insist the 1st respondent to first dispose of the stay application that would be filed by the petitioners. Further, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners till the disposal of the appeal pending before the first respondent.

10. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tri/skt To 1.