Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA Nainar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.C1/6122/2021, dated 20.12.2024, quashing the same and consequently directing the second respondent to classify the petitioner's land as patta land and issue separate patta in S.No.486/14, [Natham] situated at Maruthakulam, Thottakudi, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader Page No. 1 of 6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.C1/6122/2021, quashing the same, and consequently directing the second respondent to classify the petitioner's land in S.No.486/14 (Natham), situated at Maruthakulam, Thottakudi, Tirunelveli District, as patta land and issue a separate patta.

2. The classification of the petitioner's land was changed to Government Poramboke during the UDR scheme. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application on 19.09.2023 to the respondents, requesting them to take necessary action for changing the classification of his land in the revenue records. As no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner sent a representation dated 21.11.2023, to them. Even thereafter, no action was taken by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.26206 of 2024 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 30.10.2024, disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's Page No. 2 of 6

representation dated 21.11.2023, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. In pursuance of the above order of this Court, the second respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application dated 19.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the subject land in S.No.486/14 (Natham), situated at Maruthakulam, Thottakudi, Tirunelveli District, from one Velayutham Pillai. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioner's application for the issuance of the patta in his name, on the basis of a wrong reclassification as Government Poramboke during the UDR scheme. As the second respondent, without considering the documents and other records, passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application, the impugned order could not be sustained. Page No. 3 of 6

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order cannot be faulted, as the classification of the land in the revenue records was Government Poramboke. As the lands were classified as Government Poramboke lands, the patta could not be issued in the name of the petitioner, and hence, there were no merits in the Writ Petition.

6. With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

7. Admittedly, the land is classified as Government Poramboke, and the said classification was made during the UDR scheme. As the classification of the subject land is Government Poramboke, the second respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's application for issuance of the patta for the subject lands. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land from one Velayutham Pillai. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the classification, he has to approach the first respondent for the reclassification of the land, based on the relevant documents. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner approaches the first respondent for the reclassification of the land, he cannot claim patta. Page No. 4 of 6

8. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is valid and the same cannot be interfered with. Hence, there are no merits in this Writ Petition. In any event, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the first respondent for reclassification of the land, if so advised.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 10.01.2025 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN Copy To:

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

Page No. 5 of 6

N.MALA , J.

JEN 10.01.2025 Page No. 6 of 6