Madras HC Orders 8-Week Inquiry Into Patta on Land Allegedly Used as a Long-Standing Farm Pathway

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer should be directed to enquire into the grant of Patta No.24035 and the land’s classification in Survey No.102/3.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the rival claims.

It also directed

The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to enquire into the grant of Patta No.24035, the land’s classification, and the claimed pathway; hear the petitioner, the fourth respondent, and interested adjoining landowners; and pass appropriate orders on the merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

Parties were left at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court over title or inter se civil rights.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed that Survey No.102/3, Thedavoor Village, was Government dry land recorded as “Tharisu” and “Paathai” and had long been used as a common pathway.

pp. 2–4

He alleged that the fourth respondent obtained Patta No.24035 over the land and that its classification was changed from Government dry land to Ryotwari Punjai, obstructing access to adjoining agricultural lands.

pp. 2–4

After the petitioner’s representations, the Tahsildar forwarded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the petitioner alleged that no effective action followed.

pp. 2–4

He sought a direction to act on the pending proceedings and consider cancellation of the patta.

pp. 2–4

The Court dispensed with notice to the fourth respondent for the writ proceeding and disposed of the petition at the admission stage.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer should be directed to enquire into the grant of Patta No.24035 and the land’s classification in Survey No.102/3.

p. 2 · p. 5

ii.2. Whether the enquiry should include the petitioner’s claim that the land contained a long-standing pathway and should provide affected parties an opportunity to be heard.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court acted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exercising its writ jurisdiction to direct consideration of a pending grievance by the competent revenue authority.

p. 1 · pp. 5–6

The enquiry was to be conducted on the merits and in accordance with law, with scrutiny of relevant revenue records and a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the petitioner, the patta holder, and interested adjoining landowners.

pp. 5–6

Disputes concerning title or inter se civil rights over the property were left to the competent Civil Court.

pp. 5–6

04Reasoning

The Court did not decide whether the patta was unlawfully granted, whether the land’s classification was properly changed, or whether a public pathway existed.

pp. 4–6

Given the limited relief sought and the official respondents’ undertaking that the Revenue Divisional Officer would consider the matter within a fixed timeframe, the Court directed a fact-based enquiry.

pp. 4–6

It specified the relevant records and claims to be examined and required notice and a hearing for affected parties, while reserving any title or civil-rights dispute for the Civil Court.

pp. 4–6