The Madras High Court has mandated the Tamil Nadu government to seize 25.6 grounds of valuable land in St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. The ruling follows the imposition of ₹1 lakh in costs on three individuals who attempted to assert ownership of the public land, which has been privately occupied since 1902.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar, has instructed the Kancheepuram Collector, District Revenue Officer, and Alandur Taluk Tahsildar to utilize the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act of 1905 as necessary to reclaim the land. They are also required to submit a status report to the court by February 3, 2025.
This decision came in response to a writ appeal filed by E. Dhanapal, N. Poongothai, and P. Krishnaveni, represented by their power of attorney A.I. Sageer, who claimed the title to the property based on various documents from 1902 and subsequent transactions.
In counter-arguments, the Additional Advocate General revealed that the documents presented by the appellants indicated their predecessors recognized the payment of ‘quit rent’, which is typically levied on individuals occupying government poramboke (waste) lands.
Furthermore, the Division Bench was informed by the advocate representing the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board that the disputed land is classified as ‘B2’ (state government land) according to the General Land Register.
Upon thorough consideration, the judges stated, “This litigation is an attempt to grab the land of the government. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.” However, they opted for leniency, limiting the penalties to ₹1 lakh to be shared by the three appellants.
The appellants have been ordered to pay the specified amount to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. The judges asserted that none of the documents dated back to 1902 substantiated a claim of title, instead revealing how the ownership had been passed among vendors.
The ruling emphasized the legitimacy of the entries in the Resettlement Register, affirming that the appellants’ predecessors had acknowledged the government’s paramount title by paying quit rent, which precludes their claim against the state.
Justice Sundar noted that numerous attempts to secure a ‘patta’ (revenue document certifying private land ownership) for this land since 1968 have been unsuccessful as revenue officials consistently denied such requests. The court highlighted that eviction proceedings initiated in the 1980s against occupants did not result in government possession, leading to ongoing claims of private ownership.
The judges concluded that the appellants exploited the slackness in eviction procedures, resulting in an unfounded claim that contradicted the official revenue documents, particularly the Resettlement Register.
