Parvathi v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD).No.19889 of 2025 Parvathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2. The Thaslidar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 10.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide e/f/vz;/:105/2025/M3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant patta in petitioner's favor for the land comprised in Sur. No. 1620 admeasures to an extent of 0.17.50 acres, situated at Senkurichi Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For R1 and R2 : Mrs.Jeya Priya Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking issuance of patta.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, learned Government Advocate who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is residing in the property situated in S.No.1620 situated at Senkurichi Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, for the past 40 years by constructing a small house building. By virtue of long possession, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking issuance of patta. The said application was rejected by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

2/6

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for the past 40 years and Village Panchayat also passed a resolution on 13.09.2021 giving no objection for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. Without taking into consideration the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate who takes notice for the respondents would submit that the subject property is classified as Government Poramboke and the same is Panchayat Union Road as per the remarks in the revenue records.

7. The learned Government Advocate also produced revenue documents to suggest the S.No.1620 is classified as a Panchayat Union Road. The FMB sketch for the subject property is also produced. A perusal of the FMB sketch also would suggest that the subject property is detailed as road.

3/6

8. Taking into consideration, the subject property is a Poramboke land and is classified as road maintained by Panchayat Union, the respondents rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner. Any encroachment on the road is objectionable encroachment. S.No.1620 is classified as a Panchayat Union Road in the revenue records. Therefore, the Village Panchayat cannot give any no objection for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the road vested with the panchayat union. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the respondents.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 23.07.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm 4/6

To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2. The Thaslidar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

rgm W.P.(MD).No.19889 of 2025 23.07.2025 6/6