K THANGAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 catchments 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. .