A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday allowed a State government’s appeal pending since 2017 and set aside a 2015 direction issued by a single judge to the Chengalpattu Tahsildar to make necessary changes in the village and taluk records that Mayajaal Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. owns two acres of land at Kanathur Reddi Kuppam on East Coast Road.
The Bench of Justices T. Raja and K. Kumaresh Babu agreed with Additional Advocate General V. Arun that it was a classic case where a private entity had attempted to claim ownership over valuable government land with the active collusion of individuals who held the posts of Assistant Settlement Officer and Chengalpattu Tahsildar in the past.
The judges pointed out that Kanathur Reddi Kuppam was taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1948, by a notification issued on March 7, 1957. Thereafter, settlement proceedings were initiated in 1959. Survey number 34 in the village was spread over 5.85 acres and it was subdivided into two.
First subdivision of Survey number 34/1 measured 3.85 acres and Ryotwari patta for it was issued to Munavar Khan Saib and Noorudin Saib. However, the second subdivision of Survey number 34/2 measuring the rest of two acres remain unclaimed and it was classified as ‘Anadheenam’ in the revenue records.
In May 2003, Mayajaal Entertainment made an application to the Collector for grant of 30 year lease. The Chengalpattu Tahsildar conducted an inquiry and forwarded a proposal for leasing out the two acres of land at an annual rent of around ₹22 lakh for 20 years. Suddenly, in July 2011, the private entity made an application demanding patta for the same land.
It claimed to have purchased the property in 1999 itself. When the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the plea for patta, Mayajaal approached the High Court and obtained an order in September 2011 to reconsider the request. After such order, the Assistant Settlement Officer issued Ryotwari Patta to the private firm on November 2, 2011.
However, when its subsequent request to make changes in the village and taluk records were rejected, it approached the court again and obtained an order in 2015 to make such changes. Finding force in the State appeal, the Division Bench wondered how could a firm seeking lease of the land suddenly make a somersault and claim ownership.
Since no civil suit had been filed till date to assert the title over the property, the judges set aside a single judge’s 2015 order to make changes in village and taluk records.
