K. Thangamani vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner seeks for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the first

respondent dated 3.5.2000, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant patta with reference to the land in old S. No. 4359 new S.

No. 334/2, Thovalai Village, Kanyakumari District.

The petitioner claims to be a landless Ex-serviceman and after rendering 15 years of regular Air force service, he was discharged from duties.

He was allotted 1.65 acres of land and the nature of the land allotted to him was Kuthagai Pattam. Since then, he was paying tax regularly.

Subsequently, Kuthagai Pattam was converted into B-Memo. Since 1968, he was enjoying the land and he belongs to a poor family and has no

land of his own for cultivation. The petitioner had represented to the District Revenue Officer through the Assistant Director on 14.12.1992. The

Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., granted approval certificate for the lease of the land. The allotted land was not in the water spread area. He had spent

Rs. 70,000/- for levelling the land, filling up of the pits and constructing feeding canal. Thus, the barren land was converted into a paddy land

rendered due to his efforts since 1968. The District Revenue Officer, Nagercoil, by his letter dated 2.4.1998, taking into account his continuous

possession and enjoyment, recommended for the change of classification from tank poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry for eventual assignment of

the land to the petitioner. The Chief Engineer, P.W.D., is also stated to have given a report enforcing the said recommendation. However, in their

recommendation to the first respondent, the first respondent was requested to approve the grant of patta. However, the first respondent refused to

grant patta without perusing the records and by stating that the land was tank poramboke. Hence, the above writ petition.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the land in R.S. No. 334/2 is of a total extent of 21.15.5 hectares of land which

is classified as Ponnankulam Poramboke. An extent of 0.64.0 hectares is under the continuous enjoyment of the petitioner. He had reclaimed the

land by spending huge amount. Kuthagapattam was given to him for a period of three years from 1968. Thereafter, B-Memo charges are levied. It

is true that the village panchayat, by resolution dated 20.1.1997, expressed its consent for the change of classification and assignment in favour of

the petitioner. The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. had given their consent for the assignment. The petitioner had given

his consent for remitting the value of the land, if the land was assigned to him. Though the tank had ayacut lands and the area is being fed by

Thovalai Channel, the proposal for converting the classification into Assessed Waste Dry for eventual assignment, was sent to the Government

through the Special Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, by his letter dated 3.9.1998, had requested consideration of

details regarding the fact whether there were other encroachments as found in the channel area on the same footing as that of the petitioner and

whether assignment to the petitioner will lead to similar demands from other encroachers. The point raised by the Commissioner was examined and

finally a report was sent to the Commissioner stating that the assignment to the petitioner will lead to similar demands from other encroachers and it

would pave the way for others for encroaching the remaining portion of the kulam poramboke and that it would be a wrong precedent.

Consequently, it was informed that the land encroached by the petitioner need not be assigned and the request of the petitioner may be rejected.

The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government in their letter dated 3.5.2000 on the ground that the land in question was a water

course poramboke and that the Government had issued ban orders on watercourse poramboke for transfer or assignment.

I have heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions raised in the writ petition and states that the petitioner has spent a huge amount for

reclaiming the land and to make it cultivable and that the attitude of the Government to state at this stage that the area was a water catchment area

cannot be sustained. In fact, the field level officers of the Public Works Department have recommended the assignment in favour of the petitioner

and the contentions on behalf of the respondents that the land is a water catchment area cannot be sustained. I have also heard the learned

Additional Government Pleader.

A perusal of the pleadings as well as the records disclose that as on date, the property stands classified as Ponnankulam Poramboke and not as

Assessed Waste Dry, as contended by the petitioner. It is true that at some stage there appears to have been a recommendation for changing the

classification. The Government, ultimately, found that the entire area is a water catchment area and to grant assignment in favour of the petitioner

would not be in public interest.

The facts of this writ petition disclose that this is one of the instances of how water catchment areas in this state has been taken over by the

encroachers and all the water catchment sources in the State have been converted into plain lands, thereby depriving proper storage of water. The

attitude of the occupants of such lands and the connivance on the part of the Public Works Department Authorities and the Revenue Authorities in

permitting such occupation had resulted in great damage to the larger public interest. At least now, there is some realisation on the part of the

Government that such occupation should not be allowed and recently, this Court has also taken serious note of such illegal occupation of such

water catchment areas and standing directions have been issued to the Government to clear encroachments and occupation of all such areas of

water resources. On the facts of this case also, it is seen that the contention of the petitioner that the land has been converted as Assessed Waste

Dry is not factually correct. It is admitted that even as on date, the petitioner is receiving B-Memos. Therefore, the discretion to assign or not to

assign is with the Government and the petitioner cannot claim any right to be assigned with the land only on the strength of his occupation. The

larger interest of the community has to prevail as against individual interest and I do not find any error in the ultimate decision taken by the

Government not to assign the land. The Government is also backed by proper consideration, namely, that any such issue will only lead to similar

assignments to other encroachers and also encourage encroachment into the remaining portion of the Kulam Poramboke.

With the result, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Government. The writ petition is dismissed.