1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.(MD)No.8017 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 4 of 2011 Issac Gnanamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Forest Officer, Theni. 2. V.Ganesan, The District Forest Officer, Theni. 3. The Forest Ranger, Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Kurangani Police Station, Bodinayakanoor Taluk, Theni District. 6. Meenaiah ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 30.05.2011 in Na.Ka.No.2958/2011 Va2 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequentially forbear the respondents 1 to 3 and 6 from interfering with the property of the petitioner measuring 0.34.0 hectares (84 cents) in Survey Number 1183/1 in Kottakudi Village, Bodinayakanoor Taluk, Theni District without resorting to land acquisition proceedings. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam For R1 to R5 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.So.Paramasivam O R D E R The petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 30.05.2011 in Na.Ka.No.2958/2011 Va2 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequentially forbear the respondents 1 to 3 and 6 from interfering with the property of the petitioner measuring 0.34.0 hectares (84 cents) in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Survey Number 1183/1 in Kottakudi Village, Bodinayakanoor Taluk, Theni District without resorting to land acquisition proceedings. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property comprised in old patta No.567, new patta No.101 and is situated in Survey No.1183. The said property is a coffee estate and the same is not notified either as reserve forest or protected forest. The said property was purchased from one Grace Ammal, W/o. Dhas and after purchasing the property, they cultivating coffee and orange in the said land. The Thasildar, Bodinayakanoor has issued joint patta in the name of the petitioner and others. Thereafter, there was a partition between the petitioner and one Anthonsamy, as per the registered partition deed, dated 18.03.2011. 3. The adjacent property viz., in Survey No.1184 is situated on the north eastern side belonging to the sixth respondent herein. The sixth respondent was making arrangements on 27.06.2011, with bulldozer and heavy machineries to lay down a road to his property through the patta land of the petitioner. On knowing the same, the petitioner rushed to the spot and found the sixth respondent along with the help of the respondents 1 to 3, making hectic attempts to lay down a road in the said land. The same was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged a complaint before the respondents 4 and 5. Thereafter, the sixth respondent appeared before the police and produced the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, passed by the first respondent herein. The petitioner obtained a xerox copy of the same. 4. The perusal of the said order discloses that as if the area is the forest area and the same is to be used as a pathway to the land in Survey No.1184 belonging to the sixth respondent through the land of the petitioner in Survey No.1183. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition with the above said prayer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the disputed land, in which the sixth respondent is making an attempt to lay a road, as per the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, said to have been passed by the first respondent. It is pointed out that the land under the occupation of the petitioner is a patta land and the same was never notified as a forest land or protected land and as such, the first respondent has no authority to pass an order dated 30.05.2011, permitting the sixth respondent to lay a road through the patta land of the petitioner in Survey No.1183. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 to R5 would submit that the petitioner land is a patta land and the first respondent was under the impression that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the sixth respondent and as such, the impugned order was passed. 7. Mr.So.Paramasivam, learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that the permission was accorded by one Anthonysamy, permitting the sixth respondent to lay a road through the Survey No.1183. It is further contended that as per the Revenue Records, the disputed land is only to be used as a pathway. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 30.05.2011. 9. The perusal of the impugned order, dated 30.05.2011, passed by the first respondent herein makes it crystal clear that the first respondent permitted the sixth respondent herein to lay a road through the patta lands comprised in Survey Nos.1183 and 1184. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order itself it is stated that the land under the Survey No.1183 is the patta land and such being the position, the first respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to grant permission to anyone to lay a road without the consent or permission from the respective owners of the land covered under the Survey Nos.1183 and 1184 passed without any authority and without any jurisdiction. It is further relevant to note that it is not at all claimed by the first respondent that the disputed land is a notified forest land. Such being the position, the first respondent has no authority or power to permit any one much less the sixth respondent herein to lay a road or pathway in the patta land of the petitioner herein. 10. The learned Government Advocate has also fairly submitted before this Court that the disputed land under the Survey No.1183 is the patta land of the petitioner herein and the first respondent passed such an order granting permission to lay a road to the sixth respondent under the impression that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. 11. In view of all these factors, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, passed by the first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.2958/2011 Va2. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The District Forest Officer, Theni. 2. V.Ganesan, The District Forest Officer, Theni. 3. The Forest Ranger, Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Kurangani Police Station, Bodinayakanoor Taluk, Theni District. +1. CC to Mr.T.R.Jayapalam, Advocate, SR.No. 45478 akv W.P.(MD)No.8017 of 2011 21.12.2011 TR : 18.01.2012: 3p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/