IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5410 OF 2008 1. Ponni @ Kamala 2. R.Balasubramaniam 3. R.Thiagarajan 4. Rajalakshmi 5. Thiripurasundari 6. N.Sankar 7. G.Lakshmi 8. Varalakshmi Petitioners are rep.by their Power of Attorney Agent D.Sundararaman, No.3B, I Street, Telephone Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai-88. ..Petitioners ..vs.. 1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Collectorate Office, Kancheepuram. 3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chengalpattu Town, Chengalpattu. 4. The District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Office of District Forest Officer, Opp.Collectorate Building, Kancheepuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. C.Radhakrishnan 6. Sivagamu 7. Radhika 8. Renuka 9. Chandrika 10.Ganesh 11.Gopinath 12.Suseela 13.C.Srinivas 14.Ramesh 15.Kamatchi (died) 16.Narayanan 17.K.Narasimmalu 18.Venkatesh 19.Govindaraj (R18 and R19 are brought on record as LRs.of deceased R15 vide Order dt.19.03.2010 in M.P.No.2/2009) ..Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the reasons stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Damodaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali,G.A., for R1 to R3 Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Spl.G.P.(F)-R4 Mr.V.Bhiman for M/s.Sampathkumar Associates for R5, R6 and R17 Mr.N.K.Sivakumar for R7 to R14 R-15 died. ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioners through their Power Agent, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the classification and re- settlement of Survey No.41/1 of an extent of 3 hectare 63.0 ares equivalent to 8 acres 97 cents at No.82, Peramanur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District under the UDR Scheme from the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioners and respondents 5 to 17 regarding their lands. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the dry land measuring to an extent of 8 acres 97 cents in S.No.41/1 in No.82, Peramanur https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, was originally owned by one late Ramasubbiah. The said property was gifted by the then British Government in the 19th century to the said Ramasubbiah along with Grama Mirasi rights. Ramasubbiah died in the year 1915 leaving behind his three sons, viz., Munusamyaiah, Venkatasubbiah and Venkataramaiah. After his demise, the said three sons partitioned the property among themselves as their absolute property. Due to various circumstances, the family, which was living in Peramanur village, slowly migrated to various places due to their own avocations and jobs and ultimately, the cultivation process in the said land came to a standstill. The petitioners herein are the descendants of late Ramasubbiah. Since the lands were not duly cultivated and only 'Velikathan' trees and shrubs were grown, no assessment was collected from the families. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu developed the nearby lands and converted them into forest to grow various forest trees and the development of forest lands was carried out around the petitioners’ patta land. The petitioners' ancestors in the family had already earmarked their patta lands in Survey No.41 positively by planting palmyrah trees and putting black survey stones to denote the borders as far as possible. The authorized village map clearly shows the clear demarcation of the forest land and patta land of the petitioners, which they derived from their ancestors. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that on verification, the petitioners came to know that their land measuring to an extent of 8 acres 97 cents in S.No.41/1, in No.82 Peramanur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, was wrongly described as though included into the forest land as S.No.41, old Survey No.41/1 measuring 3 Hectares 63 ares in forest land. On coming to know of such wrong description, an application was submitted to the Commissioner of Land Administration at Chepauk-the 1st respondent, to grant a patta to their land stating that the land has already been gifted to Ramasubbiah a century back and that the nearby forest could not be put against the petitioners' patta land or be shown as forest land and therefore, the description as 'forest land' is without any basis and truth. Subsequently, the petitioners sent another representation dated 17.03.2006 to the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, the 3rd respondent herein, praying for grant of patta. Thereafter, yet another representation dated 06.11.2006 was sent to the 4th respondent, the District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram, to issue a 'no objection certificate' for grant of patta in respect of S.No.41/1 to an extent of 8 acres 97 cents in Peramanur Village. Though the Forest Range Officer at Chengalpattu had recommended to issue a 'no objection certificate', the 4th respondent-the District Forest Officer replied that unless the revenue department cancels their wrong classification, the no objection certificate cannot be issued. The petitioners have no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction for the relief as stated above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate arguments by producing the Re-survey and Resettlement Register pertaining to the year 1911 that the subject land comprised in S.No.41 originally belonged to Ramasubbiah and from whom, the property was derived by the petitioners as the descendants of the family of Ramasubbiah and except S.No.41, the other survey numbers, namely, 43/A, 43/B, 43/C and 45 were described as grazing ground and forest land. Thus, by relying upon the said Re-survey and Resettlement Register of 1911, the learned counsel would contend that the subject land was a patta land belonged to Ramasubbiah. Further, the learned counsel would rely on the forest department sketch map and would contend that the subject land was shown as a patta land, whereas other lands situated in S.Nos.40, 42, 38 and 39 were described as reserve forest land. Thus, by relying upon these documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject land is a patta land. But during the year 1986, under UDR Scheme, without issuing a notice to the petitioners, the property was re-classified as a forest land. Hence, the records pertaining to the re-classification of Survey No.41/1 has to be quashed and consequently, a direction has to be given to the 3rd respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 17, who are all the descendants of Ramasubbiah. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that it is incorrect to state that the property was re-classified as a reserve forest land during 1986 under UDR Scheme. A perusal of the adangals relating to fasli 1375, 1378 and 1382 shows that all are relating to the pre-UDR period and that the land has been classified as 'Kattankolathur Reserve Forest'. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot rely upon the entries in the ‘A’ register since the land has been classified as 'Reserve Forest' as per the revenue records and under such circumstances, the question of issue of patta does not arise in the writ proceedings. 6. The 4th respondent filed a counter stating that 'Kattankulathur Reserve Forest' was declared as Reserve Forest as per G.O.Ms.No.639 dated 11.08.1890 Chengalpattu Division Gazette Supplement dated 09.08.1890. The subject land is within the Reserve Forest as per the Notification and the revenue records and hence 'no objection certificate' could not be issued to the petitioners and the question of issuing patta to the petitioners does not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. By way of reply, by inviting the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, in which it has been stated that it was not known when the patta land was re-classified as forest land, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the said land owned by Ramasubbiah is a patta land; but, subsequently, without issuing any notice, it was re-classified as a forest land. Therefore, the respondents are bound to issue patta in favour of the petitioners. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject land measuring to an extent of 8 acres and 97 cents in S.No.41/1 is a patta land and it belonged to late Ramasubbiah. After his demise, the property was partitioned among his three sons. Now the petitioners, being the descendants of the family of Ramasubbiah, are the owners of the said land and as such, the 3rd respondent has to issue patta in favour of the petitioners, whereas without the knowledge of the petitioners, the land has been re-classified as reserve forest land even before the UDR Scheme i.e.1987. Hence, the order pertaining to re-classification of S.No.41/1 at No.76, Permabur Village under the UDR scheme on the file of respondents 2 and 3 has to be quashed. 10. It is, no doubt, by producing the Re-survey and Re- settlement register, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the subject land stood in the name of Ramasubbiah and except S.No.41/1, the other survey numbers, namely, 39, 40, 52 were described as reserve forest land. Even in the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, it has been stated that it was not known when the patta land was reclassified as forest land. However, in that counter, it has been specifically averred that the subject land has been re- classified as forest land even before the UDR Scheme; but, in the counter filed by the 4th respondent, it has been stated that the subject land was declared as 'reserve forest land' as per G.O.Ms.No.383 dated 13.08.1898. 11. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that in this case, there are mixed questions of facts and law. In the said circumstances, the issue cannot be decided in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the contentions of the respective parties have to be proved by way of evidence oral and documentary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted in this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed; however, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate civil proceedings to redress their grievance. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gl To 1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Collectorate Office, Kancheepuram. 3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chengalpattu Town, Chengalpattu. 4. The District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Office of District Forest Officer, Opp.Collectorate Building, Kancheepuram. + 1 CC TO Mr.N.K.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr 22989 + 1 cc to Mr.N.Damodaran, Advocate Sr 22650 + 1 cc to M/s.Sampathkumar & Associates Advocate SR 22543 + 1 cc to Spl.Govt., Pleader Advocate Sr 22443 Order in W.P.No.5410 of 2008 RSI (CO) RH (19.4.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/