Madras High Court
M.Senthilkumar vs The District Collector on 28 August, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:2103
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 12.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P(MD)Nos.25309 and 26788 of 2023, 2113 of 2024, 1222, 1223, 1224,
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236,
1237, 9226, 9227, 9228, 9229, 9230, 9231, 9232, 9233, 9234, 9235, 9236,
9237 and 9238 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.21499, 21500, 22861, 23013 and 23014 of 2023, 2112,
6197, 6912 of 2024, 831, 832, 833, 840, 841, 842, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851,
853, 893, 894, 895, 897, 898, 899, 901, 902, 903, 907, 908, 909, 913, 914,
916, 919, 921, 923, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 950, 951,
952, 960, 964, 965, 967, 968, 969, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886, 6887, 6888,
6889, 6890, 6891, 6893, 6895, 6896, 6897, 6899, 6901, 6902, 6904, 6905,
6907, 6908, 6913, 6914, 6943, 6944, 6947 and 6946 of 2025
W.P(MD)No.25309 of 2023:-
1.M.Senthilkumar
2.A.Muthupandi
3.K.Veerasingam
4.A.Thousila Banu ... Petitioners
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector Office,
Sivagangai District.
1/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the third respondent vide his impugned proceedings in
Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023 and to quash the same as illegal.
2/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
For Petitioners :Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.26788 of 2023:-
M.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning, Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate, Sivagangai District.
5.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
3/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records passed by the third
respondent under Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated 26.09.2023, and to quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.2113 of 2024:-
Parameswari ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated 26.09.2023 quash the
same insofar as the petitioner's Patta No.1258 for Plot No.159,
Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai, is concerned and
consequently, to direct the respondents herein to restore the patta and all
other proceedings cancelled by them for in respect of petitioner's Plot No.
159, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai covered by Patta
No.1258.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
5/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1222 of 2025:-
Sivasankari ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
6/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.151 to an extent of 897
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.151 to
an extent of 897 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1223 of 2025:-
Ondiveeran ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
7/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.46 and 47 to an extent of
1245.5 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot
Nos.46 and 47 to an extent of 1245.5 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai
Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
8/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1224 of 2025:-
Maragatham ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
9/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.27 and 28 to an extent of
2124 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot
Nos.27 and 28 to an extent of 2124 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai
Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
10/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1225 of 2025:-
Muthurajan ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
11/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.136 to an extent of 3200
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.136 to
an extent of 3200 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1226 of 2025:-
Prabhu Nisha ... Petitioner
-vs.-
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
12/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.15 to an extent of 1272
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.15 to
13/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
an extent of 1272 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner
:Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1227 of 2025:-
Rajendran ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
14/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.148 and 149 to an extent of
2230 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot
Nos.148 and 149 to an extent of 2230 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai
Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
15/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1228 of 2025:-
Rajendran ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
16/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.106A to an extent of 1200
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.106A
to an extent of 1200 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1229 of 2025:-
Pandiselvi ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
17/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.337 to an extent of 840
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.337 to
18/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
an extent of 840 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1230 of 2025:-
Kannan ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
19/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.25 to an extent of 1137
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.25 to
an extent of 1137 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
20/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1231 of 2025:-
Muthukalai ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
21/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.342 to an extent of 840
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.342 to
an extent of 840 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1232 of 2025:-
Syed Vasila ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
22/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.16 to an extent of 1272
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot No.16 to
23/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
an extent of 1272 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1233 of 2025:-
Rojinisha ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
24/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.8 & 9 to an extent of 1266
sq.ft., (each) in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot
Nos.8 and 9 to an extent of 1266 sq.ft., (each) in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai
Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
25/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1234 of 2025:-
Saravanan ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
26/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.347 to an extent of 840
sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai
District and further forbear the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot Nos.347,
to an extent of 840 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1235 of 2025:-
Asina Banu ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
27/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.E-10 and E-11 to an extent
of 2535 sq.ft., and Plot No.17, to an extent of 1272 Sq.ft., in S.No.1/6,
Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District and
further forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot Nos.E-10 and E-11
28/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
to an extent of 2535 sq.ft., and Plot No.17, to an extent of 1272 Sq.ft., in
S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1236 of 2025:-
Kavitha ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
29/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioner's Plot Nos.335 and 336 to an extent of
2240 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Plot
Nos.335 and 336 to an extent of 2240 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai
Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
30/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.1237 of 2025:-
1.Ganesan
2.Murugesan
3.Kumaresan
4.Boomirasu
5.Goonthakumar ... Petitioners
vs
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
31/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C5/8657/2013, dated
26.09.2023 quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
issue patta in respect of the petitioners' Plot Nos.331, 331A, 333 and 334 to
an extent of 3375 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam
Taluk, Sivagangai District and further forbear the respondents from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners'
Plot Nos.331, 331A, 333 and 334 to an extent of 3375 sq.ft., in S.No.1/6,
Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioners :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9226 of 2025:-
Karuppasamy ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
32/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
in so far as petitioner is concerned and to quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9227 of 2025:-
K.Samayamuthu ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
33/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.9228 of 2025:-
J.Karthika ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9229 of 2025:-
Kaladevi ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
in so far as petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
34/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9230 of 2025:-
Panjavarnam ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
in so far as petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9231 of 2025:-
Arockiya Jenita ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
35/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
in so far as petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9232 of 2025:-
Sundararaj ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
in so far as petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
36/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.9233 of 2025:-
Mahesh ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9234 of 2025:-
Ganesh ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
and to quash the same as illegal.
37/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9235 of 2025:-
V.Karuppanan ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9236 of 2025:-
R.Karpagam ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
38/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.9237 of 2025:-
Paramasivam ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
39/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
W.P(MD)No.9238 of 2025:-
G.Ramu ... Petitioner
vs
The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order made by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.C5/8657/2013 dated 26.09.2023
insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
*****
COMMON ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) The above batch of Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings, dated 26.09.2023, cancelling the ryotwari patta issued in favour of one K.S.D.Rajendran in S.No.1/6, Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.
40/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
2. Since the issues in all the Writ Petitions are similar, by consent of all the learned Counsels, the Writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in S.No.1/6 measuring an extent of 6.90 acres in Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, was originally in continuous possession and occupation of one K.S.D.Rajendran. In view of his possession and enjoyment, the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceedings, dated 13.04.1978, granted ryotwari patta in respect of S.No.1/2. However, subsequently, by an erratum issued on 13.03.1979, the survey number was changed from S.No. 1/2 to S.No.1/6. The ryotwari patta was issued in pursuant to the recommendation of the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms. The land was converted from ‘River poramboke’ to ‘Assessed dry waste’ by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 28.04.1978, thereby, the land in S.No.1/6 became patta land. All the revenue records including UDR and 'A' register, stood in the name of K.S.D.Rajendran.
41/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
4. K.S.D.Rajendran had sold the land measuring 6.90 acres in S.No. 1/6 in favour of one M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited through a registered sale deed, dated 09.05.2007. Pursuant to the purchase, the said Company had prepared a layout and obtained regularisation of the layout from the competent authority on 13.12.2017. Technical approval for construction was also accorded on 19.01.2018. Either in the unapproved layout or subsequent to regularisation, each of the Writ Petitioners herein have purchased their respective plots from out of the land in S.No.1/6.
5. Pursuant to purchase of the petitioners, their individual plots were sub divided and some petitioners have obtained planning permission for putting up constructions and some of them had also constructed their houses. Those, who had put up the constructions, had also obtained electricity service connections and are paying property tax.
6. While so, the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Sivagangai Region, by proceedings, dated 10.06.2019, cancelled the approval order, dated 13.12.2017 in view of the order of the District Collector, dated 07.06.2019. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 42/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch 16.07.2021, in W.P.(MD)No.20975 of 2019, filed by the vendor of the petitioners, namely, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, the proceedings of Deputy Director of Town Planning, Sivagangai, were kept in abeyance till the enquiry is concluded and pursuant to the outcome of the enquiry, further proceedings could be taken. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer by concluding the enquiry proceedings, by the impugned order, dated 26.09.2023, had set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 13.04.1978, in issuing patta in favour of KS.D.Rajendarn for the land classified as “Vaigai River Government Poramboke” in the settlement 'A' register and further, directed the Tahsildar concerned to cancel the sub division made and the subsequent patta issued to the petitioners. The petitioners had challenged this impugned order in all the above Writ Petitions with separate consequential reliefs.
7. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a regular ryotwari patta has been issued in favour of K.S.D.Rajendran in the year 1978 by the competent authority and since the patta was granted after following the due process of law and the patta having became final, the respondents do not have any right to cancel the 43/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch patta, that too after long lapse of time. He further contended that the decision of the Settlement Officer, who is the competent authority under the Act, is final and further, the Government has not disputed or questioned the same within the time contemplated and as such, the patta issued became final. He further contended that there had been several transfers executed, whereby, the properties have been sold to the petitioners and other purchasers and also the subject property actually is away from the Vaigai river and it is no more a water body and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. Mr.K.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the other petitioners argued that due to long lapse of time, the entire course of Vaigai river has changed and the property in S.No.1/6 is no more a part of the river and it is actually a tharisu land. In fact, even in the year 1978, since these lands do not form part of the river, they have been de-linked and the classification was changed and entered in the revenue records as “Government Tharisu”. He further contended that the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and he ought to have relegated the parties to the Commissioner of Land Administration, who would alone be competent to 44/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch conduct an enquiry. It is his further contention that no proper enquiry has been conducted by affording sufficient opportunities. The petitioners are not encroachers to be treated harshly, but they are in lawful possession for a long period based on the patta issued by the competent authority under the Act. He also submitted that the petitioners have purchased the plots with hard earnings and even some have constructed their houses and their savings cannot be set at naught by a stroke of the impugned order, by the District Revenue Officer and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
9. Per contra, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the entire lands in S.No.1 measuring 78.60 acres of Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, even prior to the settlement, were classified and stood as “Vaigai River” in the Village 'A' register. He relied on the settlement register of the year 1949 in this regard and submitted that pursuant to the settlement introduced by the Government under the Act, the entire lands in Nelmudikarai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, which was a Zamin, were notified and taken over by the Government on 07.09.1949. 45/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
10. The learned Additional Advocate General by relying on Section 3 of the Act argued that with effect from the date of notification, the entire estate shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free from all encumbrance. Further, ryotwari patta to the land holders would be granted as per Section 11 of the Act. But, however, Section 14-A of the Act prohibits grant of any ryotwari patta in respect of even any private tanks or ooranies. He further contended that when the entire lands measuring 78.60 acres in S.No.1 in the settlement register during the settlement, were classified as “Vaigai River Government Poramboke”, the Settlement Officer had sub divided the lands in S.No.1 into six sub divisions as S.Nos.1/1 to 1/6. The sub divisions in S.Nos.1/1 to 1/5 have been retained as “Vaigai River” and S.No.1/6 has alone been issued patta in favour of one K.S.D.Rajendran by converting the classification from “Vaigai River” to “Government Tharisu”. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that when there is a specific bar under the Act from issuing any ryotwari patta in respect of any water body, the very re- classification and grant of patta is illegal.
46/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
11. He further contended that already the Division Bench of this Court had granted liberty to the authorities to take appropriate proceedings for cancellation of patta and further, the Writ Court had also directed the authorities to maintain status-quo till the proceedings in respect of the enquiry in cancellation of patta is concluded. The petitioners's vendor, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, who had filed the Writ Petition for the entire lands, has participated in the enquiry and further, 28 patta holders, who have been issued with patta in respect of this land in question, also participated in the enquiry and therefore, sufficient opportunities were provided.
12. He further submitted that in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the water body cannot be converted or changed and it has to be maintained, as such. The petitioners, who had purchased the plots recently knowing well that adverse proceedings are pending cannot even claim to be the bona fide purchaser and therefore, the District Revenue Officer, who is competent authority under the Act, after due enquiry and also on conducting a spot inspection, had rightly passed the impugned order, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and 47/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
13. Heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record.
14. The issue that arise for consideration in these cases is, whether the Royatwari patta issued by the Settlement Officer on 13.04.1978 in favour of one K.S.D.Rajendran, is valid and if so, whether the cancellation of the patta made through the impugned order was after proper enquiry by affording opportunity and could it be sustained.
15. Before delving into the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.
16. The Government intended to bring in reforms in respect of the land tenure estates, thereby promulgated the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By the Act, the rights of the landholders was to be acquired and a ryotwari settlement was introduced. The Act contains provisions to decide 48/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch on the nature and character of the lands for the purpose of issuing ryotwari patta.
17. Section 3 of the Act stipulates that the entire estate including all the communal lands, poramboke and other non ryoti lands, water bodies inclusive of private tanks and ooranies, from the date of notification shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free from all encumbrances. Section 3(b) of the Act reads as under:
“3.Consequences of notification of estate.
(a).....
(b)the entire estate (including all communal lands; porambokes;
other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; [tanks and ooranies) (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works] fisheries and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;”
18. Section 11 of the Act deals with the lands in which a ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta. A ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta for all the lands, that were included or ought to have been included in the holding of which a landholder or any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under the Act. 49/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch Section 11 of the Act reads as under:
“11.Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas-- Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of-
(a)all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and
(b)all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the 1st day of July 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
Explanation. - No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section.”
19. Subsequent to the Act being implemented, ryotwari patta came to be issued in respect of private tanks and ooranies that come within the land holdings of the ryots. However, considering the sensitivity and need for the water bodies to be protected even in private tanks, the Government had come up with an amendment Act.
50/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
20. Section 14-A of the Act was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, (Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1974) by which, any grant of patta even for a private tank and oorani was barred. Further, as per Sub Section (2) of Section 14-A of the Act, even ryotwari patta that was granted in respect of private tanks and ooranies under this Act before the amendment, shall stand cancelled. Section 14-A of the Act reads as follows:
‘14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2)Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”
21. After the promulgation of the Act, in view of Section 3(b), the entire estate of the notified village stood transferred to the Government and vest in them, free from all encumbrances. However, the rights and 51/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch possession of the ryots, ie., their pre-existing rights, certainly stood protected. All the lands, which stood in the holding of the landholders, were included in their respective holdings in the settlement proceedings. A ryot was entitled for issuance of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands included in his holdings. Even if the lands are not included, a ryot is entitled to establish his pre-existing right and seek for ryotwari patta.
22. As per Section 5 of the Act, a Settlement Officer was appointed to carry out the functions under the Act. The Settlement Officer is the competent authority to issue ryotwari patta under the Act. All the ryots are entitled to for issuance of ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act for the “ryoti lands”. All the non-ryotwari lands inclusive of the water bodies and poramboke, shall stand vest in the Government on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 3(b) of the Act and no one can claim for any ryotwari patta in respect of a water body, which is a tank, river or kanmaai. Section 11 of the Act does not authorise for issuance of any ryotwari patta for these lands.
52/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
23. In view of the provisions and rules framed thereunder, a time period of six months was fixed for the ryots to seek for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any lands to the Settlement Officer from the notified date. However, later, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1971, wherein, the grant of patta to persons, who are in continuous possession and enjoyment, was allowed outside the purview of the Act subject to satisfying the conditions contained therein. This Government Order enable the ryots or any persons claiming pre- existing rights, who had not availed the ryotwari patta under the Act, to file an application and seek for ryotwari patta. By the Government Order, the persons, who failed to avail the relief, were extended with the benefit of getting ryotwari patta beyond the purview of the Act subject to the original conditions and restrictions, as contemplated under the Act.
24. However no one is entitled to claim for any ryotwari patta in respect of any water body viz. river, tank, oorani, kanmaai, etc. More over, the Settlement Officer, who was appointed under Section 5 of the Act, even though in view of G.O.Ms.No.1300, was entitled to consider the application for issuance of ryotwari patta on satisfying the conditions therein, still the 53/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch Settlement Officer has no power to re-classify the land or change the classification of the land, while considering the application for grant of ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Act. For sake of completion, it is also to be noted that subsequently G.O. Ms. No.714 dated 29.06.1987 was issued, where by rules were amended and notified on 20.07.1987 and the ceiling date for entertaining any claim for issuance of royatwari patta would be 20.08.1987.
25. The issue of grant of ryotwari patta in respect of a land to a non ryoti was considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Municipality vs P.Kumar and others, reported in (2019) 13 SCC
307. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Act in deciding the ‘ryot’ and ‘ryoti land’ and held that a ‘tank’ is not a ryoti land and as such, no rights would accrue to a person by holding a non-ryoti land even on a temporary arrangement. The relevant portions of the above decision are usefully extracted hereunder:
“17.The lease had been granted for eight months in the year 1940. The grant of lease for the aforesaid period excluding rainy season from July to October and evidence indicates that land formed part of the tank. Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission to the contrary raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that land did not form part of the tank.54/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
18.Now, we come to the question whether any right can be acquired on such a land. When we consider the relevant provisions contained in the 1908 Act and the definitions of “Ryot” as defined under Section 3(15) and “Ryoti Land” under 3(16). The same is extracted hereunder:
“3 (15) .“Ryot” means a person who holds for the purpose of agriculture ryoti land in an estate on condition of paying to the landholder the rent which is legally due upon it. Explanation.—A person who has occupied ryoti land for a continuous period of twelve years shall be deemed to be a ryot for all the purposes of this Act.
3 (16). “Ryoti land” means cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include—
(a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels;
(b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites, and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers;
(c) lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists.”
19. It is apparent from the definition of “ryot” as defined under Section 3(15), means a person who holds the land for the purpose of agriculture. It is necessary for such a “ryot” to hold “ryoti land” in an estate. Ryoti land has been defined in Section 3(16) as cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels. Thus, as the area in question formed part of the tank it was clearly not ryoti land as per the said definition in Section 3(16). As such, the predecessor-in-interest S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar or the plaintiff could not be said to be “ryot” holding “ryoti” land.
20. The provisions contained in the 1948 Act have been enacted to bring about agrarian reforms and to abolish the intermediaries, zamindars, and jagirdars, etc. As a matter of fact, a lot of agrarian reforms have taken place by the enactment of the Abolition Act, as 55/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch mandated by Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act, on issuance of notifications with effect from the notified date certain consequences ensue automatically. It is provided in Section 3(b) that the entire estate including with all communal lands; porambokes, other than ryoti lands; rivers and streams; tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works), etc., shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances.
21. Section 3 is extracted hereunder:
“3. Consequences of notification of estate.—With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act—
(a) the Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1947) insofar as it relates to matters other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Tamil Nadu Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 (Tamil Nadu Regulation 25 of 1802), the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1908), and all other enactments applicable to the estate as such shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate;
(b) the entire estate including all communal lands;
porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; wastelands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works; fisheries and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;
(c) all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder, shall as against the Government cease and determine;
(d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas muchilikas, maps, plans and other 56/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch documents relating to the estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof:
Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta—
(i) if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;
(ii) if such person is a landholder pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;
(e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person, whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him by or under this Act;
(f) the relationship of landholder and ryot, shall, as between them, be extinguished;
(g) any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the estate to any person before the notified date, against the principal or any other landholder thereof, shall cease and determine, and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such landholder and every such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him by or under this Act.”
22. It is also provided in Section 3(c) that all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder, shall against the Government cease and determine.
23. It is apparent that under Section 3 of the 1948 Act vesting is automatic by virtue of the statutory provisions and the Government is empowered to take possession as provided under Section 3(a) only saving in the proviso to Section 3(d) is that in case any person is prima facie entitled to ryotwari patta and during pendency of his application, for the settlement, was not to be dispossessed. In the case of the landholder, it is provided that if the decision is pending before the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, the State 57/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch before taking possession has to prima facie consider whether the landholder is entitled to ryot patta. Another consequence of vesting as clearly provided in Section 3(f) of Act of 1948 is that the relationship between the landholder and ryot shall stand extinguished.
24. Section 3(g) of the 1948 Act specifically provides that right which may have accrued in the estate to any person before the notified date shall not be enforceable against the Government and such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him as provided under the 1948 Act.
25. Section 11 deals with rights of a ryot in an estate to apply for a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti land which was properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding. Section 11 is extracted hereunder:
“11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta.— Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of—
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and
(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such land having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by as landholder on or after the 1st day of July, 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land. Explanation.—No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section.” 58/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
26. Section 12 deals with the right of the landholder in zamindari estate and Section 13 deals with the landholder of Inam estate with which we are not concerned in the present case. The plaintiff has claimed the right, title and interest as ryot, not as landholder.
27. Section 14-A was inserted by Amendment Act 49 of 1974. The provisions contained in Section 14-A is extracted hereunder; “14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”
28. Section 14-A(1) makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or ooranies. Even if any patta has been granted the same shall stand cancelled and the land of the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land of neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under the Act.
29. It is apparent from the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 3(15) and 3(16) of the 1908 Act and the provisions contained in Sections 3, 11 and 14-A of the 1948 Act that the land of the tank is not “ryoti land” as such no rights of “ryot” could accrue in the person by holding the land on temporary arrangement of lease granted for 8 months in a year when water was not there in the tanks. Such bodies are protected by virtue of the aforesaid provisions carved out under the Acts of 1908 and 1948. The amendment made in 1974 in Section 14-A makes it clear that even if any ryot patta has been granted to any incumbent even with respect to private tank or ooranies that shall be inoperative and stand cancelled.” 59/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
26. From the above decision, it is clear that no ryotwari patta could be issued to a tank, river, kanmaai or any water body, as the same is not a ryoti land and even persons, having a temporary holding in water body, cannot be considered as ryots and will not be entitled for any right to seek for ryotwari patta. In view of the legal provisions and keeping the above principles in mind, we would now proceed to look into the facts of the present case, to first decide on the nature of the land.
27. The perusal of the notification, dated 07.09.1949, issued under the Act reveals that Nelmudikarai Village, which was a Zamin estate, was taken over by the Government under the Act, by issuing G.O.Ms. No.2093, Revenue Department, dated 11.08.1949. The settlement has been introduced in the village in Fasli 1367. The area prior to the settlement and the area after the introduction of the settlement remained unaltered, except for a meagre extent of 29 cents out of 1600 acres. In view of the issuance of notification, dated 07.09.1949, the entire estate of Nelmudikarai Village stood transferred and vest in the Government as per Section 3(b) of the Act. 60/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch Of course, such vesting was without disturbing the pre-existing rights of the ryots.
28. The Village Settlement Register pursuant to the introduction of settlement in the year 1949, is filed. The lands measuring 78.60 acres in S.No.1 of the village has been classified and entered in the settlement register as “Vaigai River -Sarkar Poramboke”. Since there was no change in the boundaries or area pursuant to the settlement, it is evident that the entire extent of 78.60 acres in S.No.1 prior to the settlement and after the settlement stood as “Vaigai River -Sarkar Poramboke”.
29. In view of Section 11 of the Act, the ryots were entitled to seek for ryotwari patta in respect to the ryoti lands included in their holdings or who were able to establish their pre-existing rights. Admittedly, the entire extent of 78.60 acres, which is a water body and classified as “Vaigai River
-Sarkar Poramboke”, is not a ryoti land and has not been included in the holding of any ryots. Therefore, no application could be filed under Section 11 of the Act for grant of any ryotwari patta. The entire lands continued to remain as water body in the settlement register.
61/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
30. Admittedly, when the land stood as a river and classified as “Vaigai River -Government Poramboke” prior to and after the settlement, no application was also filed by any person, claiming any pre-existing right in the above lands claiming ryotwari patta. No records are also placed by the Writ Petitioners disputing the same or placing any materials to claim anything contrary to the above. Therefore, it is amply clear that the entire lands in S.No.1, measuring 78.60 acres are Vaigai River, which is a water body and no ryotwari patta could be issued for those lands, as it is a non- ryoti land.
31. While so, one K.S.D.Rajendran had filed application before the Settlement Officer in the year 1977 seeking for issuance of ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Act for a portion of the land. The Settlement Officer relying on the reports of the revenue officials, by proceedings, dated 13.04.1978 and 28.04.1978, ordered for re-classification of the portion of the land measuring 6.90 acres in S.No.1/2 from ‘River poramboke’ to ‘Assessed dry waste’ and granted ryotwari patta in favour of K.S.D.Rajendran. It could be seen that water body in S.No.1 was sub 62/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch divided into six sub divisions as S.Nos.1/1 to 1/6 and lands measuring 6.90 acres in S.No.1/2 was transferred and re-classified as “Assessed dry waste”. Further, the Settlement Officer by proceedings, dated 13.09.1979, issued an erratum, whereby, the ryotwari patta issued for S.No.1/2 was corrected as S.No.1/6.
32. The application filed by K.S.D.Rajendran for issuance of ryotwari patta, for a portion of the land in the water body in S.No.1 itself is not maintainable in view of Sections 11 and 14-A of the Act. He had not filed any application under Section 11 of the Act during the settlement proceedings. Admittedly, he could not have filed any such application, as the land is a non-ryoti land, which is a water body, that stood vest in the Government. When the application filed itself is not maintainable, the Settlement Officer considered that application, in view of G.O.Ms.No.1300 and had granted ryotwari patta in respect of 6.90 acres of lands in S.No.1/6. When even issuance of any ryotwari patta for a private tank or oorani itself is barred in view of Section 14-A of the Act and further, even if any ryotwari patta has been issued prior to the amendment of Act, the same shall stand automatically cancelled, the Settlement Officer, had however, considered the 63/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch application and granted the ryotwari patta, which is against the very provisions of the Act.
33. Further, the Settlement Officer was not having any power to order for re-classification of the land, that too a water body ‘Vaigai River- Government Poramboke’ to ‘Assessed Government Tharisu’. The application filed for grant of ryotwari patta, the order for conversion of the water body and the grant of ryotwari patta for the water body, are all against the provisions of the Act and as such the ryotwari patta issued by the Settlement Officer is void and per se illegal.
34. The water body is always to be protected and maintained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & others vs State of Punjab & Others, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 396 held that the water body cannot be alienated and has to be protected and maintained, as such for the use of the public. It is also useful to refer to the decision in a case of similar nature that arose under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi and Others, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 496, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after holding that 64/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch when a pond exists, the entire area even though may vary in the rainy season ought to be protected in entirety. The Hon’ble Court observed as follows:
“13.It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.”
35. The Settlement Officer, who was not vested with any power to order for conversion, that too converting a water body to assessed waste, in the Vaigai river, which is the perennial source of water catering the needs of millions of public and several thousand acres of agricultural lands, without assigning any reason, had ordered for conversion and granted ryotwari patta. Therefore, the very grant of ryotwari patta issued under the Act is illegal and is to be treated as nullity. The ryotwari patta granted by by converting the water body and the arguments made that the portion of the 65/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch land has changed its course and no more it is a river, are all unsustainable and liable to be rejected.
36. Subsequent to the ryotwari patta granted, the name of K.S.D.Rajendran was entered into in the settlement register for 6.90 acres in S.No.1/6. Even though, ryotwari patta was issued on 28.04.1978 in favour of K.S.D.Rajendran (whose whereabout is not known), he had executed a sale deed in favour of M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, through a registered sale deed, dated 09.05.2007. The purchaser had formed an unapproved residential layout and had thereafter, obtained regularisation through technical approval of the Member Secretary, dated 13.12.2017. A final approval was granted by the Town Planning Authorities on 19.01.2018. On the strength of the approval, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited had sold individual plots to the petitioners and others in the year 2016, 2018 and thereafter.
37. In the meantime, a Public Interest Litigation came to be filed before this Court in respect of the illegal patta granted in the portion of the Vaigai River. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, issued 66/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch proceedings, dated 08.12.2018 to the Sub Registrar and Tahsildar intimating to stop any registration of sale deed or mutation of revenue records in respect of these lands. Further, the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, had also issued a circular, dated 01.12.2019, intimating that no registration should be done in respect of the lands classified as “water body”. The purchasers of plots had challenged those two orders in independent Writ Petitions, which all came to be allowed on the ground that layout has been regularised.
38. However, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal filed in W.A.(MD)No.778 of 2020, by judgment, dated 09.03.2021, holding that the order of the Writ Court will not come in the way of the Government to cancel the patta. The Division Bench further observed that any registration of documents will not stand in the way of the Government to take appropriate steps to cancel the patta granted. Therefore, the Division Bench had allowed the Revenue authorities to cancel the patta by taking appropriate steps. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
67/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
4.Though we find force in the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, ultimately the relief granted is not interfered with as an attempt to cancel the private patta granted would be enough to rectify the irregularity. The observation of the learned Single Judge will not stand in the way of the appellants to cancel the patta and the communication sent cannot be construed as bad in law, since the order of the Division Bench is to the effect that water bodies will have to be protected and the documents relating to water bodies should not be registered. Unfortunately, as on today, the private patta has not been cancelled and until and unless the said anomaly is rectified as required under law, the relief granted cannot be interfered with. However, we make it clear that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is attributed to the case of the respondents alone. Any such registration of documents will not stand in the way of the appellants taking appropriate steps to cancel the patta granted.
39. In the meantime, the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Sivagangai, by order, dated 10.06.2019, based on the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 07.06.2019, cancelled the earlier regularisation granted. M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, who had formed the layout, even after selling the plots to the individual purchasers, however, on behalf of all the purchasers, had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P(MD)No. 20975 of 2019 challenging the cancellation of the regularisation granted. It was represented before the Writ Court that the District administration had already taken steps to cancel the patta after issuing notice to M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited and the proceedings will be completed in a 68/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch short period. The Writ Court, by order, dated 16.07.2021, disposed of the said Writ Petition holding that since already steps have been initiated to cancel the patta, the petitioner therein, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited will be issued with a notice and after affording opportunity, final orders shall be passed regarding the validity of the patta within a period of three months and based on the result, the cancellation of regularisation temporarily kept in abeyance would be acted upon and till such time, status- quo shall be maintained and no third party right should be created. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“18.In view of the above, taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation made on the side of the respondent and at the same time to safeguard the right and interest of the petitioner, this Court directs the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.06.2019 and the second respondent dated 10.06.2019 to be kept in abeyance. Since steps have already been initiated for cancellation of patta, there shall be a direction to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and call for explanation from the petitioner. On receipt of the explanation and after affording opportunity to the petitioner, final orders shall be passed with regard to the validity of the patta within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the result of the patta proceedings, the impugned proceedings of the first and second respondents that is kept in abeyance, can be acted upon or withdrawn, as the case may be. Till this process is completed, the petitioner shall maintain the present status quo and shall not create any third party rights or make any developments in the subject property.” 69/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
40. It is to be noted that the original ryotwari patta holder, K.S.D.Rajendran, all along remained silent till the same was sold in the year 2007. M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, the purchaser, formed an unapproved layout around the year 2017. Technical approval followed by final regularisation was granted only in the year 2018. Therefore, only pursuant to that, plots have been sold to individual petitioners herein. Even after when the individual parties came up with the Writ Petitions, when the registration was stopped and orders were passed in the Writ Petition, as referred earlier, when the approval was cancelled, the petitioners have not come forward but only M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, the promoter of the layout, on behalf of all the purchasers, had come up with the Writ Petition. As referred earlier, the Writ Court had directed the district authorities to decide on the cancellation of patta, since already proceedings has been undertaken. M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited was to be afforded with opportunity. Neither the petitioners nor their vendor, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited had filed any appeal and the said order became final. Pursuant to the order in the Writ Petition, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited and the petitioners have participated in the enquiry proceedings.
70/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
41. When the petitioners are all the purchasers of plots only in the year 2006, 2018 or thereafter, the arguments advanced that the patta granted has been cancelled after long number of years and their valuable rights are taken away is without any basis. It is to be seen that even when the petitioners purchased the plots, there has been proceedings in this regard and orders are passed either stopping the registration or cancelling the regularisation granted and therefore, they entered into the troubled waters voluntarily by choosing to purchase the plots. Further, only based on the purchases, pattas were mutated subsequently in their name.
42. In the enquiry, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited had participated through its representative, P.Chandran. It is recorded in the enquiry that since the Managing Director of the Company is residing abroad, their power of attorney, P.Chandran had participated in the enquiry and deposed that the Company had formed 77 plots in the layout and sold it to purchasers. Along with the promoter/vendor M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, 28 pattadhars and other purchasers had appeared for enquiry before the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. The participation of the promoter, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, pattadars and 71/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch purchasers and the enquiry conducted on several dates has been recorded in the impugned order. The representative of the Company had given a statement to the effect that the land in S.No.1/6 is now completely away from Vaigai river and he had furnished other details. The statement of the Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer had been recorded. The District Revenue Officer had also conducted a spot inspection during the enquiry.
43. The District Revenue Officer on finding that the ryotwari settlement was implemented in the Fasli year 1367 for the Nelmudikarai Village and the estate was taken over through the Act, on verification of the records, had recorded that as per the settlement 'A' register, S.No.1 for the entire 78.60 acres stood as “Vaigai River -Government Poramboke” and as per the UDR entries, the land in S.No.1 has been sub divided into S.Nos.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6. While all these sub divisions in S.Nos.1/1 to 1/5 had been retained as “Vaigai River -Government Poramboke” (Water body), the land measuring 6.90 acres (2.79.5 Hectares) in S.No.1/6 alone has been entered in the name of K.S.D.Rajendran.
72/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
44. The authority had also verified the adangal of the year 1927, wherein, it is found that the land in S.No.1 for the extent of 78.60 acres had been recorded as “Vaigai River -Government Poramboke”. As such, the authority came to the conclusion that the entire lands in S.No.1 prior to the settlement and after the settlement, stood as “Vaigai River- Government Poramboke” (Water body). The authority had considered the provisions and found that in view of Section 14-A of the Act, no patta could be granted for the water body and further the directions has been issued by this Court and also the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.186, Revenue Department, dated 29.04.2003, directing to remove the encroachment in the water body and restore it. As such the District Revenue Officer had issued the impugned order cancelling the ryotwari patta granted in favour of K.S.D.Rajendran and had directed the revenue Tahsildar to take follow up action and to cancel the subsequent mutation and patta granted in favour of several private persons including the petitioners.
45. As referred earlier, the Division Bench of this Court and the Writ Court had given liberty to the authorities to take proceedings to cancel the patta and further, the Writ Court had directed the district administration to 73/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch complete the patta cancellation proceedings within three months, which has already been undertaken and the petitioners' vendor, M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited, was directed to be given opportunity. The said order having become final, the District Revenue Officer, in due compliance with the orders of the Writ Court, had conducted the enquiry by affording sufficient opportunities. M/s.Seeni Naina Holding Private Limited participated in the enquiry and further, 28 pattathars and the purchasers have all participated in the enquiry and there had been sufficient opportunities afforded and on a detailed enquiry and after recording the statements of all the concerned parties, further by making a personal inspection, the District Revenue Officer had passed the impugned order cancelling the ryotwari patta granted on 13.04.1978. As such, the arguments raised that the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction is without any basis and is accordingly rejected.
46. At this stage, when the Writ Petitions are filed in the year 2023 and heard finally, the learned Counsels for the petitioners strangely made a vain attempt contending that they may be allowed to go before the appellate authority. When the Writ Petitions have been pending all along and the legal 74/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch issues have been answered and when it has been found that very ryotwari patta issued on 13.04.1978 in favour of K.S.D.Rajendran is per se illegal and void, which is in breach of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the powers conferred on the Settlement Officer, no purpose would be achieved in allowing the petitioners to file any appeal and it would only be an empty formality. It would only lead to further delay in restoring and preserving the water body. As such, the plea made in this regard is rejected.
47. In view of the above deliberations, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
48. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the respondent authorities shall take due steps and ensure that the water body is restored and protected to its original position as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (G.A.M., J.)
Index :Yes/No 25.08.2025
NCC :Yes/No
75/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector Office,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Director,
O/o.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Sivagangai Region,
Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat,
Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
8.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor and Registration Department,
Sivagangai District.
76/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.25309 of 2023 and batch
28.08.2025
77/77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )