Partly allowed¶77

Sounthararaj.D v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – patta

Madras HC30 Apr 2025WP(MD)/18253/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

patta cancellation; assignment; belated cancellation; adverse inference; untraceable revenue records; Assistant Settlement Officer correction slip dated 02.09.1998; Navalpattu Village Survey No.310/9; Thiruverumbur Taluk; ELCOT Navalpattu IT Park SEZ; transfer of patta; ex parte decree; Certiorarified Mandamus; W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023; Madras High Court Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the fifth respondent dated 26.06.2023 set aside; seventh respondent (Tahsildar, Tiruverumbur Taluk) directed to effect transfer of patta from the name of Saroja to the writ petitioner within four weeks; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed; no costs. ¶77

Sounthararaj.D Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 of the fifth respondent (District Revenue Officer) cancelling the patta in respect of Survey No.310/9, Navalpatti Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk and declining transfer of patta to the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

No steps whatsoever were taken by the respondents to recall or cancel the 1983 assignment or the 2000 patta issued in favour of the vendor Saroja; the respondents cannot take advantage of their own manually drawn sub-division entries, and it is not their case that the entries were the petitioner's handiwork.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

The belated cancellation of the patta in favour of Saroja could not be sustained, particularly as she had already alienated the property to the petitioner and was dead on the date of the impugned order; consistently with the decisions relied upon, an order of assignment cannot be cancelled belatedly even on a claim of breach of assignment conditions after lapse of decades.

¶76

Key takeaways

As there is nothing concrete to show that the Assistant Settlement Officer's letter dated 02.09.1998 was forged or fabricated, and the officials could only state that the records were not traceable, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner to deny him patta.ratio¶71
The earlier direction to the District Revenue Officer to test the claim independently did not mean the civil court decree could be effaced altogether; only that the ex parte nature of the decree alone should not be weighed in favour of issuing patta.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – patta – belated cancellation unsustainable. Land of 3 acres in S.No.310/9, Navalpattu Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk was assigned in 1983 to one Saroja; patta issued 27.09.2000 and mutated; petitioner purchased under sale deed dated 25.02.2002 (Doc.No.1353/2002); his suit O.S.No.1405 of 2016 stood decreed (ex parte, unappealed). The fifth respondent (District Revenue Officer) by order dated 26.06.2023 cancelled the patta on the ground that the sub-division flowed from a purportedly fake Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur letter dated 02.09.1998. Held: (i) the respondents never moved to recall the assignment or patta for nearly four decades and cannot take advantage of their own manually drawn entries; (ii) with no positive material proving forgery and records admittedly unavailable, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchaser; (iii) following this Court's consistent view (K.S.Jarina; Seriya Pushpam; Gunasundari), an assignment cannot be cancelled belatedly even alleging breach of conditions after decades. Writ petition partly allowed, impugned order set aside; Tahsildar directed to transfer patta to the petitioner within four weeks.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023 and

¶8

W.M.P(MD)Nos.15218 & 15220 of 2023

D.Sounthararaj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai 600 009.

¶14

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶15

The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Directorate of Survey and Settlement, Central Survey Office, Survey House, P.W.D. Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶16

The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirapalli.

¶17

1/14

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶20

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli

¶21

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli District

¶22

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District.

¶23

The District Registrar, District Registrar's Office, Registration Department, Court Campus, Tiruchirapalli.

¶24

Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), Represented by its Managing Director, II Floor, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶25

10.The Authorized Officer, Electronic Corporation of Tamilnadu (ELCOT), Integrated Information Technology Park, Special Economic Zone, Navalpattu, Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 5 th respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/ 23675/2016, dated 26.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently

¶27

2/14

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶30

direct the Respondents 1 to 7 to issue patta to the petitioner land in S.No.310/9 in Navalpattu Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District to an extent of 3 Acres and to take appropriate legal actions against the officers concerned for having sold the petitioner land to the 9 th and 10 th Respondents in the year 2007 without acquiring the petitioner land in the manner known to law within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for Mr.G.kannan

¶32

For R1 – R8 : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶33

For R9 & R10 : Mr.Vijayan for M/s.King and Patridge

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 5 th respondent, dated 26.06.2023 and consequently to direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of Survey No.310/9 Navalpatti Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District and also take legal action against

¶36

the officers concerned for having sold the petitioner’s land to 9 th and 10 th respondents in the year 2007 without acquiring the petitioner’s land in a manner known to law.

¶37

3/14

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

Though the respondents 9 and 10, namely ELCOT and its authorized officers were impleaded in the writ petition, by order, dated 12.02.2025, in view of the petitioner stating that he has no claim against the ELCOT, the same was recorded and this writ petition as against the respondents 9 and 10 was not pressed.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the lands comprised in Survey No.310/9, Navalpatti Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, (Originally Trichy District) to an extent of 3 acres was assigned in favour of one Saroja w/o Nagalingam, by proceedings of the Special Tahsildar dated 25.10.1983 and subsequently patta was also issued to the said Saroja on 27.09.2000. The revenue records were also mutated in her name. The petitioner has purchased the said property from the said Saroja, in and by registered sale deed, dated 25.02.2002 in Document No.1353/2002. The petitioner has made an application for transfer of patta in his name based on the said sale deed. The petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.14013 of 2014 seeking issuance of writ of

¶43

4/14

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶46

mandamus to pass orders on his application for patta. This Court, by an order, dated 25.08.2014 directed the revenue officials to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and other co-pattadhars and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner was also constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.1405 of 2016 for declaration and permanent injunction on the file of I Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree, dated 30.08.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said decree has become final that the respondents preferred no appeal therefrom.

¶47

Subsequent to the decree passed in the petitioner’s favour, he approached the 4^th and respondents for issuance of patta in the petitioner’s name. According to the petitioner, the 5^th respondent directed the 7^th respondent to conduct enquiry and file a report. Despite several representations given by the petitioner and also the directions of the respondents 4 and 5, the 7^th respondent did not take any action. Therefore, the petitioner preferred one more writ petition in W.P(MD)No.27480 of 2022 and this Court by order, dated 20.01.2023, directed the District Revenue Officer to test the claim of the petitioner independently and conduct proper enquiry and pass final orders on

¶48

5/14

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶51

merits. Thereafter, the petitioner has once again approached the 5^th respondent on 17.02.2023 and submitted a detailed representation. The 5^th respondent however has passed the order which is impugned in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original assignment was to an extent of 3 acres in Survey No.310/9. However, the lands in Survey No.310/1 measuring 850.90 acres of unassessed punja lands was further subdivided and assigned by the revenue department for various purposes. Even the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in his proceedings, dated 02.09.1998 had called upon the then Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli to take action with regard to the necessary corrections in S.F.No.310/2 and annexed the correction sketch. According to the petitioner, even in the said correction sketch, the petitioner’s vendor’s name was found and subsequently, in and by proceedings, dated 04.03.2002, the Tahsildar cancelled all the subdivisions on the ground that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur had not made any such request or issued such directions and that the said letter, dated 02.09.1998 was likely to be a fake document. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy by letter, dated 27.04.2015 requested the Assistant Settlement Officer to give a genuineness certificate regarding the proceedings dated 02.09.1998. A reply was given to the effect that the records were not available

¶52

6/14

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶55

in their office. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, up to the date of passing of the impugned order by the 5^th respondent on 26.06.2023, the lands had been mutated only in the name of the petitioner’s vendor and all of a sudden, the said patta has been cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that at this distant point of time, it would be highly unjust for the respondents to cancel the patta citing that the letter of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur dated 02.09.1998 was not genuine.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1534 of 2023 (The Commissioner of Land Administration & Others Vs. K.S.Jarina), W.P.No.11836 of 2010 (Seriya Pushpam Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration) and W.A(MD)Nos.1201 & 1588 of 2019 (The District Collector & Others Vs. Gunasundari & Others) .

¶57

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that as per the FMB and ‘A’ Register, the lands were originally assigned Survey No.310/1. Though during updating Registry scheme, the lands in Survey No. 310/2 were subdivided and included in ‘A’ Register, Assistant Settlement

¶58

7/14

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶61

Officer by letter, dated 02.09.1998 issued a correction slip, based on which subdivisions were effected and written in manuscript. However, subsequently, it has been struck down by the Tahsildar’s proceedings, dated 04.03.2002 since it was realized that the correction slip was a fraudulent document and never issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He would therefore submit that the petitioner’s purchase of lands alleged to be in Sub Division 310/9 is without any basis whatsoever. He would however contend that based on the request of the Government, the Collector, Tiruchirapalli has subdivided Survey No.310/1 into 310/10, 310/12, 310/13, 310/14 and 310/17 and allotted to ELCOT, 9^th respondent in the writ petition. As regards the suit in O.S.No.1405 of 2016, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it was an ex parte decree and this Court while directing the revenue authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for patta, had clearly observed that the District Revenue Officer would test the claim of the writ petitioner independently without being swayed by the ex parte decree in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the impugned order has been passed on merits, after affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner and also after field inspection conducted by the 5^th respondent. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the impugned order is well

¶62

8/14

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶65

considered and well merited order requiring no interference.

¶66

The claim of the petitioner is that he has purchased lands measuring 3 acres in Survey No.310/9 from one Saroja, the original assignee from the Government. The said assignment was acted upon by the respondents by issuing patta in favour of the said assignee Saroja even as early as on 27.09.2000. The assignment itself was much earlier in the year 1983. Absolutely, no steps were taken by the respondents to recall or cancel the assignment or the patta issued to the petitioner’s vendor, Saroja, at any point of time. It was only after the petitioner made an application for issuance of patta and also approached this Court for his application to be disposed of, that the respondents have woken up and proceeded to reject the petitioner’s request citing the reason that Survey No. 310/9 was effected as a result and consequence of a fake letter of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own entries drawn up manually, mentioning the sub division numbers. It is not the case of the respondents that it is handiwork of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was not even in the scene when the assignment was issued to the vendor in the year 1983 and subsequently patta was issued in the year 2000. At no point of time, the assignment or patta to the petitioner’s vendor was doubted by any of the

¶67

9/14

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶70

respondents. It is yet another fact that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 1405 of 2016 and the said suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. Even though this Court directed the District Revenue Officer to independently test the claim of the petitioner, this Court never said that the decree can be effaced altogether. This Court only meant that merely because the petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree, that alone should not be weighed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

¶71

Yet another circumstance in favour of the petitioner is that even in the present proceedings, there is nothing concrete to indicate that the letter of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 02.09.1998 is a forged or fabricated document. When such an enquiry was attempted by the officials, the response was only that the records were not available in the said office. I can understand that if a positive reply had been given stating that the letter is a fabricated document or a forged document and that it has not been issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, then things can be interpreted differently. Merely because the respondents are not in a position to trace the relevant records, there can be no adverse inference drawn against the petitioner to deny him patta, especially when the petitioner’s vendor was issued with an assignment order and patta way

¶72

10/14

¶73

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

¶74

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶75

back in the year 1983 and 2000 respectively, which is admitted to by the respondents.

¶76

Therefore, in the light of the above, I am constrained to interfere with the belated exercise of cancellation of the patta in favour of the said Saroja, especially when she had already alienated the property in favour of the petitioner and also was dead and gone on the date of order being passed by the 5^th respondent. This Court, with regard to the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has consistently held that an order of assignment cannot be cancelled belatedly, even if there was a claim of violation or breach of assignment conditions, when action was sought to be initiated after several decades or lapse of several years.

¶77

For all these reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the 5^th respondent is set aside. The 7^th respondent shall effect transfer of patta from the name of Saroja to the writ petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶78

11/14

¶79

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

¶80

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶81

This Writ Petition stands partly allowed with the above directions. No

¶82

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶83

30.04.2025

¶84

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg

¶85

To:

¶86

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶87

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶88

The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Directorate of Survey and Settlement, Central Survey Office, Survey House, P.W.D. Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶89

The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirapalli.

¶90

12/14

¶91

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

¶92

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶93

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli

¶94

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli District

¶95

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District.

¶96

The District Registrar, District Registrar's Office, Registration Department, Court Campus, Tiruchirapalli.

¶97

The Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), II Floor, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶98

10.The Authorized Officer, Electronic Corporation of Tamilnadu (ELCOT), Integrated Information Technology Park, Special Economic Zone, Navalpattu, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶99

13/14

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶102

P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶103

gbg

¶104

W.P.(MD)No.18253 of 2023

¶105

.04.2025

¶106

14/14

¶107

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the fifth respondent (District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli District) in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/23675/2016 dated 26.06.2023, cancelling the patta standing in the name of the petitioner's vendor Saroja / rejecting the petitioner's claim for transfer of patta.¶26
District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli District (fifth respondent) · 26.06.2023
Prior proceeding
Land measuring 3 acres in Survey No.310/9, Navalpatti Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk assigned in favour of one Saroja w/o Nagalingam by proceedings of the Special Tahsildar dated 25.10.1983.¶42
Prior proceeding
Patta issued in favour of the assignee Saroja on 27.09.2000 and revenue records mutated in her name.¶42
Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased the property from Saroja under registered sale deed dated 25.02.2002 in Document No.1353/2002 and applied for transfer of patta.¶42
Prior proceeding
Sub-divisions effected pursuant to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur's letter dated 02.09.1998 were cancelled by the Tahsildar's proceedings dated 04.03.2002 on the ground that no such request or direction had been issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer.¶51
Prior proceeding
W.P(MD)No.14013 of 2014 seeking mandamus for disposal of the patta application; by order dated 25.08.2014 this Court directed the revenue officials to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and other co-pattadhars and pass final orders on merits.¶46
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.1405 of 2016 for declaration and permanent injunction on the file of I Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 30.08.2018 (stated to be an ex parte decree, not appealed against).¶46
Prior proceeding
W.P(MD)No.27480 of 2022: by order dated 20.01.2023 this Court directed the District Revenue Officer to test the petitioner's claim independently, conduct proper enquiry and pass final orders on merits.¶47
Prior proceeding
Detailed representation dated 17.02.2023 submitted to the fifth respondent, pursuant to which the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 came to be passed.¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondents 9 and 10 (ELCOT and its Authorized Officer) were impleaded; by order dated 12.02.2025, the petitioner having stated he had no claim against ELCOT, the writ petition was not pressed against respondents 9 and 10.¶41

Sounthararaj.D v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sounthararaj.D v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Nadhakumar Vs The District Collector

Latha Vs The District Collector

Narasimman M Vs The Thasildar

S.Murugan Vs The District Collector

T.Pandiyammal Vs The Tahsildar

T.P.Ramesh Vs The District Revenue Officer