Allowed¶99

Rani @ Sasi Rani v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP/22338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assignment patta cancellation — free agricultural patta to landless poor — violation of assignment conditions (residence/cultivation) — Revenue Standing Order No.15 Part II clause 3 'landless persons' ceiling — complaint by private fifth respondent — cancellation without notice, breach of natural justice — NH-179A Salem-Chennai acquisition proposal stayed — delay of seventeen years — Dharmapuri / Harur Taluk / Tiruvannamalai — writ petition allowed, orders dated 09.03.2023 and 03.07.2019 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Orders impugned in the writ petition (dated 09.03.2023 and 03.07.2019) quashed; writ petition allowed; no costs; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶99

Rani @ Sasi Rani Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Orders impugned in the writ petition (dated 09.03.2023 and 03.07.2019) quashed; writ petition allowed; no costs; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶99

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's assignment patta by respondents 2 and 3 was justified, i.e., whether the petitioner violated the conditions of the assignment as to residence and cultivation. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

There is no violation of the conditions of the assignment, and the third respondent ought not to have cancelled the assignment patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

Sending mere copies to the petitioner did not amount to service of notice or grant of an opportunity of hearing; the cancellation is therefore a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶98

Key takeaways

The grounds raised by the fifth respondent were not proved before the third respondent so as to justify cancellation; the petitioner had purchased another land only in 2014, seven years after the assignment.ratio¶91
There is absolutely no reason for the delay in cancelling the assignment patta after a period of seventeen years; the cancellation was mobilized only to avoid payment of compensation for the road formation from Chennai to Salem via Tiruvannamalai.ratio¶83
Perusal of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.70 of 2016 dated 08.08.2019 reveals that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and cultivating the same continuously.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) allowed a writ petition and quashed the orders dated 09.03.2023 (District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri) and 03.07.2019 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur Taluk) cancelling a free assignment patta of two acres granted to the petitioner, a landless poor beneficiary, in 2007. Held: (i) there was no violation of the conditions of assignment — the decrees in O.S. No.70 of 2016 (dated 08.08.2019) and A.S. No.26 of 2019 (dated 12.12.2022) established the petitioner's continuous possession and cultivation, and her purchase of other land in 2014 fell within the 'landless persons' ceiling under clause 3 of Revenue Standing Order No.15 of Part II - Disposal of Land; (ii) the cancellation, entertained only to satisfy the fifth respondent's complaint and after seventeen years, was in truth driven by the desire to avoid compensation for the (since-stayed) NH-179A acquisition; and (iii) no notice was issued to the petitioner and mere sending of copies did not amount to service of notice or opportunity of hearing — a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 22338 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. 22338 of 2024

¶7

AND

¶8

WMP NO. 24331 OF 2024 and WMP NO. 31720 OF 2024

¶9

Rani @ Sasi Rani

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The District Collector District Collectorate, Dharmapuri District

¶13

2.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶14

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

¶15

4.The Tahsildar Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶16

5.KALIAPPAN S/o Muniyagoundar, Melpachar Village, Mothakkal Post, Thandrampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

¶17

Respondent(s)

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

Call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Ni. Mu. No 11752 / 2019 / Tha. 2 dated Marh 9, 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 281/4 in Patta No. 863, Mandhikulampatti village, harur Taluk, Dharmapuri district

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

second respondent dated 09.03.2023, whereby confirming the order passed by

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶30

The petitioner was assigned two acres of land comprised in survey

¶31

No.149 situated at Melpachaar Village, Thandarampattu Taluk,

¶32

Thiruvannamalai District in patta No.79 in the year 2007.

¶33

The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment by cultivating the

¶34

same. I think so, after a period of sever years, the fifth respondent submitted a

¶35

petition to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner residing somewhere else and not in the assigned land. Further, the

¶36

petitioner did not cultivate the same and kept the land vacant. These are

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

respondent herein and the same was also dismissed.

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶54

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

¶55

O.S. No.70 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

¶56

against the respondents 1 to 4 therein.

¶57

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

¶58

appeal suit in A.S. No.26 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the Judgment

¶59

and Decree dated 12.12.2022.

¶60

While pending suit, the fifth respondent submitted representation

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶67

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

¶68

issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

Perusal of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.70 of 2016

¶77

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

¶78

subject property and the petitioner is cultivating the same continuously.

¶79

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

¶80

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶81

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

¶82

given for the acquisition proceedings to form a road from Chennai to Salem via Tiruvannamalai is mobilized. Therefore, further there is absolutely no reason for

¶83

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.

¶84

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 have cancelled the assignment patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶85

Though, the fifth respondent was served and a counsel appeared before this Court, no one is present today either by person or through the

¶86

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

¶87

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶88

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

¶89

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

¶90

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

¶91

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

¶92

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

¶93

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

¶94

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

¶95

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶96

dry and 60.5 areas if it is wet.

¶97

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

¶98

land and cultivating the same. That apart, on perusal of the order passed by 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. By merely sending the copies to the petitioner would not amount to service of notice and the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶99

In view of the above, the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and this writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶100

14-10-2025

¶101

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

¶102

WP No. 22338 of 2024

¶103

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

¶104

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

¶105

WP No. 22338 of 2024