Madras High Court
D.Nandhagopal vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 12 December, 2025
W.P.No.26636 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.26636 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.29943 of 2025
D.Nandhagopal,
S/o.Devaraj,
No.78/2, Vellore Road,
Punganur Village & Post,
Arcot Taluk,
Ranipet District - 632 507. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Survey and Settlement Wing,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Tahsildar,
Arcot Taluk, Arcot,
Ranipet District.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm )
W.P.No.26636 of 2025
5.The Block Development Officer,
Thimiri Union, Thimiri,
Arcot Taluk,
Ranipet District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3
and 4 from converting the meikaal poramboke / grazing lands for the
purpose of granting house patta to the individuals contrary to the
order dated 02.02.2022 passed by this court in W.P.No.19286/2021
and consequentially grant an order of injunction from putting up any
construction in S.No.255 situated at Punganur Village, Arcot Taluk,
Ranipet District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman
Government Advocate
For respondent Nos.1 to 5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking to forbear the authorities from converting the meikkal poramboke / grazing lands in Survey No.255 situated at Punganur Village, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District, for the purpose of granting house site pattas to the individuals. __________ Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025
2. The petitioner claims to be the resident of Punganur Village and also an elected member of the Village Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the Village Panchayat has a population of more than 10,000 people and livelihood of the villagers mainly depends on farming and raising cattle. An extent of 386.99 acres [140.07.5 hectares of land] in Survey No.255 of Punganur Village is classified as grazing lands in the revenue documents. Apart from this Village, even the cattle from the neighbouring villages are brought for grazing in the above lands.
3. Further, a tank has also been formed for storing drinking water for the cattle. Only recently the petitioner came to know that the lands were sub-divided into Survey No.255/2A and 255/1A1A. The sub-division was carried out for the purpose of providing free house site pattas to 49 persons. Any conversion and grant of patta in the grazing land is in violation of Clauses 15(5) and 21(6) of the Revenue Standing Orders. The action of the respondents in providing house site pattas by converting the grazing land is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the petitioner had come up with the above writ petition.
__________ Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025
4. Mr.P.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land classified as grazing land cannot be used for any other purpose and it has to be protected as grazing land as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2011 11 SCC 396. When the entire land in Survey No.255 is classified and recorded as grazing land, any action of the authorities in converting the land and providing patta for house site would be in violation of the Revenue Standing Orders and the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Contending contra, Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, learned Government Advocate for the respondents relying on the counter affidavit submitted that the land originally stood classified as ‘hill poramboke’ and during the survey and resettlement, mistakenly it was entered as ‘grazing ground’, but the error was rectified even in the year 1979 under the UDR Scheme. Nearly for the past 4 decades, the lands have been classified and recorded in the revenue records as ‘hill poramboke’. Further, when a vast extent of land is available in Survey No.255, only a small portion measuring 2.38 acres has been utilised for providing house site pattas to nearly 132 persons who are __________ Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 homeless poor tribes, after obtaining necessary approvals and conversions. Most of the beneficiaries have also constructed the houses and the entire balance extent is hill poramboke, which is in effect used for grazing.
6. Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.
7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are attempting to convert the grazing lands in Survey No.255 of Punganur Village to provide house site pattas to certain individuals. The updated revenue record of Punganur Village is relied on to show that the lands in Survey No.255 stand classified as grazing lands/Meikkal poramboke.
8. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that the lands measuring an extent of 386.99 acres [140.07.5 hectares] of Punganur Village were classified as ‘Hill Poramboke’ as per the Original Survey and Settlement Register published in the year 1882. The Hill Poramboke is about 5 kms in radius on the ground and height of the hill ranges from 50 to 100 __________ Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 metres. In the Survey and Resettlement Register published in the year 1916, the lands were mistakenly entered as ‘grazing ground’ instead of ‘hill poramboke’. But when a comprehensive Updated Registry [UDR] Scheme was introduced in the year 1979, the lands in Survey No.255 had been rightly again classified as ‘Varadesi Malai’ in UDR ‘A’ Register published in the year 1983. When the records were updated based on physical verification, the original entry, which was hill poramboke from the year 1882, stood restored and entered as ‘Varadesi Malai’, which is also a hill.
9. Apart from the fact that the land in Survey No.255 is not grazing land and admittedly stands in the revenue records as ‘Varadesi Malai’ a hill, it is also averred that there is an extent of 145.39 acres of grazing land in various survey numbers in the same Punganur Village and also an extent of 19.02 acres classified as ‘cattle stand’ poramboke land in various other survey numbers, which are used for grazing purposes.
10. Around 87 persons had encroached a small portion of land in Survey No.255, by putting up dwelling houses and mostly the __________ Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 encroachers were ‘Irulars’ belonging to the Tribal Community. Based on their representation and also to accommodate few others from the other poor landless class, the District Collector, Ranipet, by orders dated 04.11.2020 and 26.05.2023, had reclassified a portion of land measuring 2.38 acres in Survey no.255 for the purpose of providing house site pattas to 132 persons.
11. Based on the proceedings of the District Collector, Ranipet, pattas have been issued to nearly 132 persons to a total extent of 2.38 acres in Survey No.255 of Punganur Village. Thereafter, subsequent orders have also been issued providing financial benefits under various schemes to enable the beneficiaries to put up houses and most of the beneficiaries have also constructed the houses as on date.
12. It is to be noted that the entire land in Survey No.255 was originally classified as ‘hill poramboke’ from the year 1882 and except for an entry in the Survey and Resettlement Register as ‘grazing ground’, the land has again been classified as ‘Varadesi Malai’, which is hill in the revenue records from the year 1983. Atleast for the past 4 decades the classification of land remains as hill and not grazing lands and if at all there had been any objection or wrong entry, anyone __________ Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 including the petitioner, could have challenged the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer/competent authority. But till date the same has not been assailed.
13. When a large extent of 386.99 acres is available in Survey No.255, only a small extent of 2.38 acres has been reclassified as ‘natham poramboke’ for the purpose of providing house site pattas to the houseless poor tribes and other landless poor persons to resettle them. The entire balance extent of around 384 acres has not been disturbed and stands as ‘Varadesi Malai’, which in effect can also be used for grazing. When the land in Survey No.255, admittedly stands classified as ‘Varadesi Malai’, atleast from the year 1983 and original classification was also hill from the year 1882, there is no irregularity or any illegality on the part of the authorities in converting a small portion of the land as ‘natham’ for providing house sites to 132 beneficiaries, mostly from tribal community.
14. Apart from not challenging the UDR entry made in the year 1983 as ‘Varadesi Malai’, the petitioner has also not chosen to challenge the proceedings of the District Collector, Ranipet, dated 04.11.2020 and 26.05.2023, whereby an extent of 2.38 acres has __________ Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 been converted to natham poramboke, by which 132 persons were provided with allotment of house site pattas. After getting financial assistance, the beneficiaries had also constructed the houses. Without challenge to any of these proceedings, including the classification in UDR in the year 1983, the relief sought by the petitioner, cannot be sustained. However, we make it clear that there shall not be any further conversion or alienation in the subject property.
15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge the conversion of land, we are not inclined to grant any such permission to reopen the old settled record.
16. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 12.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sri __________ Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Survey and Settlement Wing, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Tahsildar, Arcot Taluk, Arcot, Ranipet District.
5.The Block Development Officer, Thimiri Union, Thimiri, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.
__________ Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm ) W.P.No.26636 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri W.P.No.26636 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.29943 of 2025 12.12.2025 __________ Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 12:57:18 pm )