Madras High Court Allows Writ Appeal by Villagers Challenging Restraint on Construction of Anganwadi Centre. Land classified as private temple, not private patta; patta obtained by misrepresentation cannot defeat public purpose.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present writ appeal was instituted by three villagers (appellants) challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10255 of 2019. The 4th respondent, P. Muthaiyar, had filed the writ petition seeking to restrain the official respondents (District Collector, Block Development Officer, and Tahsildar) from constructing an Anganwadi Centre on a piece of land situated at S.No.4539/4 Old No.118 in Patta No.599, measuring 0.43.5 ares, located at Vannakulam, Kadampuliyur, Cuddalore District. The learned Single Judge, based on the statement of the 4th respondent who claimed to be the owner of the land, granted the relief restraining the official respondents from constructing the Anganwadi Centre except by due process of law. The appellants, who were not parties to the original writ petition, obtained leave from the Court to file the intra-Court appeal. The appellants' counsel drew the Court's attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer, Panruti, which revealed that the survey number 539/4 (old survey no.118) was classified as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala Nambagar' and was a private temple as per revenue records and a judgment and decree in O.S.No.67 of 1953. The counter affidavit further stated that the 4th respondent had obtained an interim status quo order by furnishing a fabricated patta (Patta No.599) in which he had inserted his father's name. The Block Development Officer also submitted that the Government had constructed the Anganwadi building up to roof level before the 4th respondent obtained the interim order. The Court, after considering the submissions, found that the land in question was not the private patta land of the 4th respondent but was classified as a private temple. The Court held that the 4th respondent had obtained the patta by misrepresentation and that the construction of the Anganwadi Centre was for the benefit of the public, especially children and women. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent. The Court also directed the official respondents to proceed with the construction of the Anganwadi Centre in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Writ Appeal - Maintainability - Third Party Rights - Villagers who were not parties to the original writ petition sought leave to appeal against an order restraining construction of an Anganwadi Centre - The Court granted leave and heard the appeal on merits, considering the public interest involved in the construction of the Anganwadi Centre (Paras 2-3).

B) Land Classification - Patta - Misrepresentation - The land in question was classified as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala Nambagar' (private temple) in revenue records, and the 4th respondent allegedly obtained patta by inserting his father's name - The Court noted that the patta was fabricated and that the land was not private property (Paras 4-5).

C) Public Interest - Anganwadi Centre - Construction - The Court held that the construction of an Anganwadi Centre is for the benefit of the public, especially children and women, and that the 4th respondent's claim based on a fabricated patta cannot be allowed to defeat the public purpose (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in granting an order restraining the official respondents from constructing an Anganwadi Centre on land claimed by the 4th respondent as his patta property, when the revenue records classified the land as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala Nambagar' (private temple) and the patta was allegedly obtained by misrepresentation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.10255 of 2019 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the 4th respondent is dismissed. The official respondents are directed to proceed with the construction of the Anganwadi Centre in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Writ appeal
  • maintainability
  • third party rights
  • classification of land
  • patta
  • misrepresentation
  • public interest
  • Anganwadi Centre
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 24

WA No. 1370 of 2023 and CMP No.13416 of 2023

2026-03-26

S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender

Mr.N.Umapathi for appellants; Dr.S.Suriya, Addl.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3; No appearance for 4th respondent

A.K.Rajendran, S.Manikandan, S.Thiyagarajan

The District Collector, Cuddalore District; The Block Development Officer, Panruti; The Tahsildar, Panruti; P. Muthaiyar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeal against order of learned Single Judge restraining construction of Anganwadi Centre

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the order dated 20.12.2021 in W.P.No.10255 of 2019 and allow the construction of the Anganwadi Centre

Filing Reason

The 4th respondent obtained an interim order restraining construction of Anganwadi Centre on land claimed as his patta property, but the land was classified as private temple and patta was allegedly fabricated

Previous Decisions

Learned Single Judge granted relief restraining official respondents from constructing Anganwadi Centre except due process of law based on 4th respondent's statement

Issues

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting restraint order based on patta that was allegedly fabricated and land classified as private temple Whether the writ appeal by third-party villagers is maintainable

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the land is classified as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala Nambagar' (private temple) and not private patta land, and the 4th respondent obtained patta by misrepresentation Official respondents supported the appellants' case through counter affidavit stating the land is not private property

Ratio Decidendi

The land in question was classified as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala Nambagar' (private temple) in revenue records, and the 4th respondent obtained patta by misrepresentation. The construction of an Anganwadi Centre is for public benefit, and a fabricated patta cannot be allowed to defeat the public purpose.

Judgment Excerpts

The survey no.539/4 old survey no.118, is classified as 'Thaneer Pandhal Dharmam Tharkala nambagar' and it is private temple as per revenue record the 4th respondent, without villagers as a party got an interim 'Status Quo' order dated by furnishing fabricated Patta No:599 in this patta he had inserted his father's name

Procedural History

The 4th respondent filed W.P.No.10255 of 2019 seeking restraint on construction of Anganwadi Centre. Learned Single Judge granted relief on 20.12.2021. Three villagers obtained leave and filed the present writ appeal on 26.03.2026.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Labour Court's Compensation Award in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Compensation of Rs.75,000 Upheld as Just and Proper for Irregularly Appointed Employee Who Worked for About 2 Years 7 Months.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Writ Appeal by Villagers Challenging Restraint on Construction of Anganwadi Centre. Land classified as private temple, not private patta; patta obtained by misrepresentation cannot defeat public purpose.