Allowed

Sathiya v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP/22335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This constitution bench quashed the orders cancelling the petitioner's agricultural assignment patta. The Court held that the cancellation was procedurally flawed due to lack of notice and hearing, and the substantive grounds were unsubstantiated, suggesting the action was taken to evade land acquisition compensation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders cancelling the assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.

Sathiya Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶7

AND

¶8

WMP NO. 24327 OF 2024 and WMP NO. 31718 OF 2024

¶9

1. SATHIYA

¶10

W/o Thukkaraman, Melpachar Village, Mothakkal Post, Thandrampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

¶11

Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The District Collector District Collectorate, Dharmapuri District

¶14

2.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶15

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Reveneu Divisional Office Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶16

4.The Tahsildar

¶17

Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶18

5.KALIAPPAN

¶19

S/o Muniyagoundar, Melpachar

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶22

Village, Mothakkal Post, Thandrampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

¶23

Respondent(s)

¶24

PRAYER

¶25

Call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Ni. Mu. No 11749 / 2019 / Tha. 2 dated March 10, 2023 and 3rd respondent in Ni. Mu. 3246 / 2016 (AA2 ) dated July 3, 2019 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents not to disturb possession in S. No 280/6 in Patta No. 843, Mandhikulampatti village, harur Taluk, Dharmapuri district

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M. Guruprasad for Mr.J.Pradeep

¶27

For Respondent(s): Mr. D. Ravichander Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 M/s. D. Giribabu for R5 No Appearance

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the

¶30

second respondent dated 10.03.2023, whereby confirming the order passed by

¶31

the third respondent dated 03.07.2019, whereby the assignment patta issued in

¶32

favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the complaint submitted by the fifth respondent herein.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶35

The petitioner was assigned two acres of land comprised in survey

¶36

No.30/2B, 2C, 58/11, 121/2, 140/6, 54/9A3, 57/2C, 1/1B, 54/9A1, 58/12, 58/5, 58/12, 6/2D situated at Melpachaar Village, Thandarampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District in patta Nos.125, 751, 256, 184, 180, 743, 279, 195, 279 and 13 in the year 2007.

¶37

The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment by cultivating the

¶38

same. After a period of sever years, the fifth respondent submitted a petition to

¶39

cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is residing somewhere else and not in the assigned land. Further, the petitioner did not cultivate the same and kept the land vacant. These are

¶40

violations of conditions imposed at the time of assignment of the subject land.

¶41

On receipt of the complaint, the third respondent herein, conducted

¶42

enquiry and cancelled the assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second

¶43

respondent herein and the same was also dismissed.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶46

On perusal of the records and the counter affidavit filed by the second

¶47

respondent, it is revealed that the petitioner was issued free assessment agricultural patta for the petitioner's land, which was originally classified as Government Poramboke, on condition that the petitioner shall not own a piece of land in petitioner's name or in the name of the petitioner's legal heirs, the petitioner should not be employed with any Government bodies, the petitioner

¶48

should not be earning more than twenty four thousand per annum and the petitioner should be the resident of the patta issuing village.

¶49

The petitioner was a landless poor and was selected as a beneficiary.

¶50

Accordingly, the petitioner was assigned patta in the petitioner's land ad measuring two acres.

¶51

The complaint was lodged by the fifth respondent, on the ground that

¶52

the petitioner was residing somewhere else and not in the patta land. Further, the

¶53

petitioner did not cultivate the said land. Infact, the fifth respondent disturbed

¶54

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and as such the

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶57

petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against the respondents in

¶58

O.S. No.65 of 2016. It was decreed by the Judgment and Decree dated 08.08.2019 as against the fifth respondent herein and the suit was dismissed as

¶59

against the respondents 1 to 4 therein.

¶60

Aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent has also preferred an

¶61

appeal suit in A.S. No.30 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the Judgment

¶62

and Decree dated 12.12.2022.

¶63

While pending suit, the fifth respondent submitted representation

¶64

before the third respondent to cancel the patta assigned in favour of the

¶65

petitioner. Further, it is revealed that the Government of Tamil Nadu with the Government of India, in the year 2015, proposed to construct a new National

¶66

Highway - 179A for ease of traffic and to lighten the hardship faced by the people in accessing the Inter-State buses connecting Salem with Chennai via Thiruvannamalai and Harur. They also proposed to acquire the subject land.

¶67

However, subsequently the entire project was stayed by virtue of an order

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶70

passed by this Court. However, it was the main reason for cancelling the patta

¶71

issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶72

On receipt of the complaint from the fifth respondent, there was an

¶73

enquiry by constituting a special enquiry team. On receipt of the said report

¶74

from the special enquiry team, it was concluded that the petitioner did not

¶75

cultivate the subject land and that the petitioner was residing in some other village.

¶76

Perusal of the record reveals that though the petitioner is residing at

¶77

Tiruvannamalai District, the assigned land is at boundary to the Dharmapuri

¶78

District and it is located in the petitioner's village.

¶79

Perusal of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.65 of 2016

¶80

dated 08.08.2019 reveal that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the

¶81

subject property and the petitioner is cultivating the same continuously.

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶84

Thus, it is clear that only to avoid the payment of compensation that is

¶85

to be given for the acquisition proceedings to form a road from Chennai to Salem via Tiruvannamalai, this cancellation of patta proceedings has been initiated. Therefore, further there is absolutely no reason for the delay to cancel the assignment patta that too after a period of seventeen years. It is also pertinent to note that the fifth respondent lodged a complaint and on the said complaint, they conducted enquiry and passed orders.

¶86

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 did not take any steps on their own and only in order to satisfy the fifth respondent herein, the compliant was entertained and assignment for the patta was cancelled. In fact, the petitioner obtained Judgment and Decree as against the fifth respondent for declaration and injunction. Therefore, there is no violation of the conditions of the assignment and as such the third respondent ought not to have cancelled the assignment patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶87

Though, the fifth respondent was served and a counsel appeared

¶88

before this Court, no one is present today either by person or through the

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶90

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶91

pleader. However, the fifth respondent filed counter in this writ petition.

¶92

On perusal of the counter, accordingly to the fifth respondent, the

¶93

petitioner holds patta land in petitioner's village and the petitioner did not cultivate the subject land for a long period. Perusal of records reveal that the petitioner had purchased another land only in the year 2014 that is after a period

¶94

of seven years from the date of the assignment in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the grounds raised by the fifth respondent were not proved before the

¶95

third respondent to cancel the assignment patta that is in favour of the petitioner.

¶96

Even assuming that the petitioner possessed the same land, as per the

¶97

Revenue Standing Order No.15 of Part II - Disposal of Land, clause No.3 speaks about Ordinary Rules which apply to the disposal of assessed land not being reserved. Clause No.3 speaks about the definition for "landless persons". Accordingly, "landless persons" means a person who owns a total extent of less than 1.21.5 hectares of land, if dry, or a total extent of less than 60.5 areas, if wet. Therefore, the petitioner can possess less than 1.21.5 hectares of land if it is

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶99

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶100

dry and 60.5 areas if it is wet.

¶101

Even till today, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the

¶102

land and is cultivating the same. That apart, on perusal of the order passed by

¶103

the third respondent, the petitioner was not issued any notice. Only after the receipt of the complaint from the fifth respondent, the third respondent received reports from the officials and passed orders. Merely sending the copies to the petitioner would not amount to service of notice and hence, petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶104

In view of the above, the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot

¶105

be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and this writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

¶106

Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶107

14-10-2025

¶108

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶109

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶110

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab

¶111

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶112

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶113

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶114

¶115

1.The District Collector District Collectorate, Dharmapuri District

¶116

2.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶117

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Reveneu Divisional Office Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶118

4.The Tahsildar

¶119

Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶122

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

¶123

¶124

WP No. 22335 of 2024

¶125

14-10-2025

¶126

(1/5)

¶127

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sathiya v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathiya v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Araamuthu Vs the District Collector

S.S.Vijayalakshmi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector

Rani @ Sasi Rani Vs the District Collector

Vijaya Vs the District Collector

Rukku Vs the District Collector