Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V.S. Ponnusamy, owned a land at Nallagoundanpalayam Village, Erode Taluk. A plan-marked channel was running through his patta land. Under RSO 26(15), such a channel is deemed to be government land. Upon a complaint from neighbouring owners, the authorities inspected and found that the petitioner had laid a 63-feet pipeline and constructed a 7-feet wall, obstructing the free flow of water in the channel. A notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued, followed by a final notice under Section 6 after affording opportunity. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 before the District Collector, who conducted an enquiry and rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 10-A before the Government, which was also rejected by G.O.Ms.No.349 dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the Government order. The court examined the scope of RSO 26(15) and noted that the petitioner did not produce any document to show that the channel was not a government channel. The court held that the authorities had properly considered the matter and the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity. The court also observed that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Encroachment - Plan-Marked Channel - RSO 26(15) - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Sections 6, 7, 10, 10-A - The petitioner challenged the eviction order for constructing a pipeline and wall in a plan-marked channel. The court held that a plan-marked channel running in patta land is government land under RSO 26(15), and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption. The authorities had conducted proper inquiry and afforded opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed as no grounds for interference were made out. (Paras 1-9)
B) Land Law - Revision - Section 10-A - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - The petitioner's revision under Section 10-A was rejected by the Government after considering the scope of RSO 26(15). The court found no error in the revisional order as the petitioner did not produce any document to show that the channel was not a government channel. (Paras 3-8)
C) Land Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - The court observed that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings. The authorities had concurrently found that the petitioner had encroached upon the plan-marked channel. The writ petition was dismissed. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order rejecting the revision petition under Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is sustainable in law, and whether the petitioner's construction of a pipeline and wall in a plan-marked channel amounts to encroachment on government land.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2023 in G.O.Ms.349 was upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Plan-marked channel in patta land is government land
- RSO 26(15) presumption rebuttable by patta
- Section 6 and 7 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act
- 1905
- Revision under Section 10-A
- Writ jurisdiction not to re-appreciate evidence
Case Details
WP No. 36347 of 2023 and WMP No. 36328 & 36329 of 2023
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan for Mr.V.V.Sathya (Petitioner), Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Addl.G.P. for R1 to R5, Mr.S.Arun Prasath for R6
Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Chennai; The Collector, Erode; The District Revenue Officer, Erode; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode; The Tahsildar, Erode; V.P.Eswaramurthy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Government rejecting the revision petition under Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, regarding eviction of encroachment on a plan-marked channel.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 in G.O.Ms.349 passed by the 1st respondent insofar as it relates to his land in R.S.No.124/8 at Nalla Goundenpalayam Village, Erode Taluk and District.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's land had a plan-marked channel running through it. The authorities issued notices under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioner had laid a pipeline and constructed a wall causing obstruction to the free flow of water. The petitioner's appeal and revision were rejected, leading to the writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The District Collector rejected the appeal under Section 10. The Government rejected the revision under Section 10-A vide G.O.Ms.No.349 dated 12.07.2023.
Issues
Whether the impugned order rejecting the revision petition under Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is sustainable in law.
Whether the petitioner's construction of a pipeline and wall in a plan-marked channel amounts to encroachment on government land.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the channel was not a government channel and that he had not encroached upon government land.
Respondents argued that the plan-marked channel is government land under RSO 26(15) and the petitioner had obstructed the free flow of water.
Ratio Decidendi
A plan-marked channel running in a patta land is government land under RSO 26(15). The presumption under RSO 26(15) can be rebutted by the pattadar by producing documents to show that the channel is not a government channel. In the absence of such rebuttal, the authorities are justified in treating the plan-marked channel as government land and taking eviction action. In writ jurisdiction, the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings when the authorities have concurrently found encroachment after proper inquiry and opportunity.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner owns a land at Nallagoundanpalayam Village, Erode Taluk. As per the plan marked details, a channel is running in patta land and therefore, as per RSO 26(15), the said plan marked channel is to be construed as government land.
The authorities, during the course of inspection, found that the petitioner laid a pipeline with a length of 63 feet and further, constructed 7 feet wall, which would cause obstruction for free flow of water in the plan marked channel.
The Government considered the scope of RSO 26(15). RSO 26(15) reads as under. 15. Encroachment non plan-marked details: - A plan-marked channel or pathway running in a patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachments in such lands need be invoked only in cases where the encroachment has interfered with the free flow of water or passage.
Procedural History
The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, followed by a final notice under Section 6. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 before the District Collector, who rejected it. The petitioner then filed a revision under Section 10-A before the Government, which was rejected by G.O.Ms.No.349 dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the Government order.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905: 6, 7, 10, 10-A
