BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.5060 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2008 Solachery Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Solachery Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Represented by its Present President (Nattanmai) A.Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Collector Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Tahsildar Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 3.I.Sornam ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the 1st respondent in reference number Na.Ka.A1/13022/05 cancelling the Natham patta issued to the petitioner for survey number 431/10. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam ^For Respondents 1 and 2 ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the
first and second respondents. By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up
for final disposal.
2.This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the first
respondent, the Assistant Collector, dated 24.11.2005, under which, the first
respondent has cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner as early
as on 29.03.1993.
3.The main grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent is not
the authority contemplated to pass such orders in respect of grant or refusal of
patta regarding ‘Natham’ lands. The further case of the petitioner as submitted
by the learned counsel is that even as per the impugned order, the first
respondent has clearly recognized the possession of the petitioner for more than
30 years, which is required even in civil law, if a person who is in occupation
for more than 30 years against the Government land which confers him a right to
adverse possession. It is his further contention that the order itself is
against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1971, Revenue Department, dated
14.10.1988, which clearly contemplates that the Special Tahsildar if on an
enquiry is satisfied that a person has been in continuous possession for more
than 30 years, patta has to be granted, whereas, as stated in the impugned order
itself, the first respondent himself has specified that the petitioner has been
in possession for more than the prescribed period, and inspite of it, the
impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent, which is against the
contents of the Government Order and therefore, according to the learned
counsel, the impugned order suffers from want of jurisdiction, mala fide and
perverse.
4.On the other hand, a reference to the impugned order makes it clear that
as against the said order, an appeal is provided to the District Revenue Officer
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The order
is dated 24.11.2005. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has
not been communicated to the petitioner at all and the petitioner came to know
just before filing of the Writ Petition only after obtaining information under
the Right to Information Act.
5. On the other hand, a reference to the order makes it clear that there
is absolutely no perversity on the part of the first respondent in passing the
impugned order. Even assuming that there is a perversity or the first
respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order or the order is against the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.1971, Revenue Department, dated 14.10.1988, it is not as
if the petitioner has no alternate remedy available as it is seen in the
impugned order itself an effective alternative remedy has been provided by
filing an appeal to the District Revenue Officer. In such circumstances, I do
not see that in the presence of such effective alternate remedy, there is a very
great situation for this Court to interfere while exercising the jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
However, it is the case of the petitioner as it is seen in the record that the
petitioner has received the copy of the impugned order only just before the
filing of the Writ Petition and that too, under the Right to Information Act,
and the authorities under the Act have also refused to give any copy of the
order.
7.I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to avail the
alternative remedy as found in the impugned order. The petitioner is permitted
to file an appeal to the District Revenue Officer and if the petitioner files
such appeal to the District Revenue Officer, within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Revenue Officer shall
receive and consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law, without rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation.
8.It is also made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition should not
be taken as this Court has expressed any opinion on the merit of the impugned
order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008 are dismissed.
tk/mpk
To
1.The Assistant Collector
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District.