Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by M. Sellathambi seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 03.03.2023 of the Additional District Collector (Revenue), Thanjavur, and to direct the respondents to hand over land measuring 5100 sq.ft in S.No.199/2B, Pillaiyarpatti Village. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property in 1982 from G. Thambidurai, who had formed an approved layout. The application for patta was not processed as the land was classified as ‘Punja Tharisu’. The petitioner, along with others, had earlier filed W.P.No.20141 of 2022 seeking a mandamus to consider his representation for patta. The High Court, by order dated 08.08.2022, directed the District Collector to consider whether the classification could be converted to enable issuance of patta. Pursuant to that, the impugned order was passed, rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that the vendor Thambidurai had suffered orders up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore the petitioner could not claim any better rights. The petitioner argued that his physical possession for several decades had been recognized and could not be disturbed without land acquisition proceedings. The respondents contended that the lands had been allotted to ‘Neo Tidal Park’ and the petitioner was not in possession. The Court examined the impugned order and found no illegality or error, as the District Collector had properly appreciated the materials. However, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Pradhan Babu v. Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam relating to the deeming provision under Section 38(b) of an unspecified Act, the Court noted that in the present case there were no acquisition proceedings. The Court therefore held that if physical possession had not been taken from the petitioner in a manner known to law, such possession shall be protected until the respondents took recourse to due process. The writ petition was dismissed with this direction regarding physical possession, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title Derivation - Petitioner cannot claim better rights than vendor - Not specified Act - Petitioner purchased property in 1982 from G. Thambidurai, who suffered orders up to Supreme Court; District Collector rightly held petitioner cannot claim better rights; Held impugned order not erroneous (Paras 3-4, 9). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226, Constitution of India - Protection of physical possession - Petitioner claimed long physical possession; Court directed that if physical possession not taken in manner known to law, it shall be protected until respondents take due process; Held possession be protected pending lawful taking (Paras 5, 8, 10). C) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 38(b) of the Act (not specified) - Applicability of deeming provision - Supreme Court in Pradhan Babu held acquisition lapses if no steps taken, but here no acquisition proceedings existed; Held deeming provision does not apply (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Additional District Collector rejecting the petitioner's claim for patta and possession is valid; Whether the petitioner's physical possession entitles him to protection without acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order was upheld as no illegality or error was found. However, the court directed that if physical possession had not been taken from the petitioner in a manner known to law, such possession shall be protected until the respondents take recourse to due process of law. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- petitioner cannot claim better rights than his vendor when vendor's title negatived up to Supreme Court
- physical possession not taken in manner known to law shall be protected until due process of law
- deeming provision under Section 38(b) of the Act regarding lapse of acquisition applies only when acquisition proceedings exist
