Govindaraj v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.A.No.1462 of 2016 Govindaraj Appellant
Versus
1 State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District Collector O/o.The District Collector Krishnagiri District.
2 The Tahsildar O/o.The Tahsildar Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
3 Revenue Divisional Officer Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9.9.2016 passed in W.P.No.31454 of 2016 on the file of this court. Prayer in WP.no.31454/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus To call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.3409/2016/A6 dated 27.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to survey and demarcate the land in village S.No.73 and 74 Ettikal Agaram Village Krishnagiri District and fix the boundaries for the petitioner land which is 54.27 acres of land. For appellant : Ms.Selvi George For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, who is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the question of maintainability. It appears that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property in S.Nos.73 and 74 of Ettikal Agaram Village, Krishnagiri District, sought for fixation of boundaries, claiming that it belongs to him to the extent of 54.27 acres of land.
3. It appears that the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk and District, had passed a detailed order, on the application filed by the appellant, rejecting his request to demarcate the property and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the same, was also dismissed, as against which, the petitioner is before this court. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that appeal remedy is available to the appellant as per Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that no document of title was produced before the authority and rather the land so claimed by the appellant is not a riotwari land and it is a Government land and accordingly, sought to contend that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. He would further contend that the appellant has not produced original deed of title to the extent of 54.27 acres which is said to be comprised in S.No.73 and 74 of Agaram Village and therefore, it was not possible to demarcate the boundaries and therefore, the application of the appellant was rejected on 27.4.2016.
5. The stand of the appellant is that he has got patta and also original title deeds, but, the same were not properly considered by the Tahsildar. If that be so, it is matter of fact to be considered by the Tahsildar and therefore, it is for the appellant to satisfy the Tahsildar concerned, by producing such documents once again and also documents regarding the source from which the property was derived by the appellant, to demonstrate his ownership since according to the Tahsildar, the said land in question belongs to the Government.
6. In the circumstances, it is for the Tahsildar concerned to reconsider the case of the appellant, on production of sufficient material documents in proof of ownership and possession of the property alongwith original title deed by the appellant, since the Tahsildar has observed that the property in
question, claimed by the appellant belongs to the Government. However, the conclusion shall be arrived by the Tahsildar on looking the veracity of the documents, produced and after hearing the appellant, once again, in accordance with law, however, without expressing any opinion, the decision would be taken by the Tahsildar, without being influenced by the learned Single Judge. However, it is made clear that since the appellant has contended that the documents were not considered properly by the Tahsildar, only to enable the appellant to have an opportunity of hearing and production of document, in compliance of principles of natural justice, this order is passed for reconsideration once again.
7. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To:
1 The District Collector State of Tamil Nadu O/o.The District Collector Krishnagiri District.
2 The Tahsildar O/o.The Tahsildar Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
3 Revenue Divisional Officer Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
+1cc to Mr.Selvi George, Advocate, S.R.No.66920 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.67067 nrjk(CO) md(23/12/2016) W.A.No.1462 of 2016