Madras High Court
Masilamani …… vs Loganathan on 1 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :01.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD) Nos.1117 and 695 of 2024; W.A(MD) Nos. 1572 and 1573 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6243 and 8631 of 2024
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.12200 and12196 of 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1117 of 2024:
MASILAMANI ……APPELLANT/3rd PARTY
Vs
1.LOGANATHAN
2.RAJAMMAL
3.MAGUDEESWARAN
S/O.KALIAPPAN
4.THANGARAJAN
5.MAGUDEESHWARAN
S/O. VILANDI GOUNDER
6.KANDASAMY
1/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
7.ALAGAR
8.KALIAPPAN
9.ARUMUGAM
10.KEPPAYEE
11.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DINDIGUL.
12.THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICE,
DINDIGUL.
13.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND (REFORMS).
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
14.THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE,
PALANI DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
G.D.NARENDRA (DIED)
15.PUSHPAWATHIE
16.M.BALASUBRAMANIAN ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattern,praying to
set aside the common order made by this Court dated 23.06.2022 in
WP(MD)No. 23475 of 2018, and to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of
2/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
suppression of fact and playing fraud upon the Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior counsel
for Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh.
For R-1, to R-3,
R-5, R6, R8 to R10. : Mr.K.Baalasundaram, Senior counsel
for M/s.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj
For R-11 to R-14 :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Spl.G.P.
For R-15 and R-16 : Mr.H.Velavadhas.…
W.A.(MD) No. 695 of 2024:
MASILAMANI ……APPELLANT/3rd PARTY
Vs
1.SIVAKUMAR
2.CHELLAMMAL
3.JOTHIAMMAL
4.RAVIKUMAR
5.SELVAKUMAR
6.THE DISTRICT COLLECT,
Office of the District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul.
3/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
7.THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER,
Office of the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul.
8.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Office of the Revenue Divisional Office,
Palani, Dindigul District.
9.THE TAHSILDAR,
Office of the Taluk Office, Palani,
Dindigul District.
G.D.Nagendra (Died)
10.PUSHPAWATHIE,
W/O. LATE G.D.NARENDRA,
4/128, A-1, Syndicate Bank Colony,
Salem Town.
11.M. BALASUBRAMANIAN,
S/o. Muthusamy, 140B, Jeeva Nagar,
Sivagiripatti, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
..Respondents 6 to 11/
Respondents.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattern, praying to
set aside the common order made by this Court dated 23.06.2022 in
WP(MD)No. 23474 of 2018, and to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of
suppression of fact and playing fraud upon the Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior counsel for
M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh
For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj
4/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
For R-6 to R-9 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Spl.G.P.
For R-10 and R-11 : Mr.H.Velavadhas.
W.A.(MD) No.1572 of 2023:
G.D.NARENDRA (DECEASED)
PUSHPAWATHE …….APPELLANT
/5th respondent.
Vs
1.SIVAKUMAR
2.CHELLAMMAL
3.JOTHIAMMAL
4.RAVIKUMAR
5.SELVAKUMAR
6.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
O/o.The District Collector Dindigul
7.THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
o/o.The District Revenue Officer Dindigul
8.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms)
Office of the Revenue Divisional Office,
Palani, Dindigul District.
9.THE TAHSILDAR
Office of the Taluk Office Palani,
Dindigul District.
10.M.BALASUBRAMANIAN
S/o.Muthusamy 140B,
5/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
Jeeva Nagar Sivagiripatti,
Palani Taluk, Dindigul District ……Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattern,praying to
set aside the common order made by this Court dated 23.06.2022 in
WP(MD)No. 23474 of 2018, and to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of
suppression of fact and playing fraud upon the Court
For Appellant : Mrs.W.Pamelin
For R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5 : Mr.S.Ramu
For R-6 to R-9 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Spl.G.P.
W.A.(MD) No. 1573 of 2023:
G.D.NARENDRA (DECEASED)
PUSHPAWATHE …….APPELLANT
Vs.
1.LOGANATHAN
2.RAJAMMAL
3.MAGUDEESWARAN
4.THANGARAJAN
5.S.MAGUDEESHWARAN
6.KANDASAMY
7.ALAGAR CHINNARAMAN
8.KALIAPPAN
9.ARUMUGAM
10.KEPPAYEE
11.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
6/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
O/O. District Collector Dindigul
12.THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
O/O. District Revenue Officer Dindigul
13.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms)
Office of the Revenue divisional office,
Palani, Dindigul District.
14.THE TAHSILDAR
Office of the Taluk Office,
Palani, Dindigul District
15.M.BALASUBRAMANIAN
S/o.Muthusamy 140B, Jeeva Nagar,
Sivagiripatti, Palani Taluk Dindigul District. ………Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattern praying to
set aside the common order made by this Court dated 23.06.2022 in
WP(MD)No. 23475 of 2018, and to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of
suppression of fact and playing fraud upon the Court.
For Appellant : M/s.W.Pamelin
For R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5 : Mr.S.Ramu
For R-11 to R-14 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
COMMON JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
J.NISHA BANU. J.
These intra-court appeals are filed against the common order dated
23.06.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) Nos. 23474 and 23475 of 2018. Since the
issues involved in these writ appeals are one and the same, they are taken up
and heard together, and a common order is being passed.
2.The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.695 and 1117 of 2024 is a third party to
the said writ proceedings and was not arrayed as a party to the writ petitions.
She had purchased the subject property for consideration from one
G.D.Narendra-the 5th respondent in the said writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.
23474 and 23475 of 2018. Therefore, she filed miscellaneous petitions in
C.M.P.(MD) No.11550 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) No.4312 of 2024 seeking
leave to sue against the impugned order passed in W.P.(MD) No.23474 and
23475 of 2018 dated 23.06.2022, which were allowed by this Court on
29.09.2023 and 04.04.2024, respectively.
3.The appellant in W.A.(MD) Nos. 1572 and 1573 of 2023 is the legal
heir of G.D.Narendra-the 5threspondent in the above writ petitions, who was the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
possessor and rightful title holder of the subject property. Since the 5th
respondent died during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the appellant in
W.A.(MD) Nos. 1572 and 1573 of 2023 was substituted as the 5th respondent
by order dated 06.04.2022 in W.M.P.(MD) No.3805 and 3809 of 2021 in W.P.
(MD) Nos. 23474 and 23475 of 2018.
4.The respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.(MD) No.1572 of 2023 and W.A.(MD)
No.695 of 2024 are the writ petitioners 1 to 5 in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018,
and the respondents 1 to 10 in W.A.(MD) No.1573 of 2023 and W.A.(MD) No.
1117 of 2024 are the writ petitioners 1 to 10 in W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018.
For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid respondents shall hereinafter be
referred to as the “1 to 5 writ petitioners” and the “1 to 10 writ petitioners,”
respectively.
5.Before delving into the facts and contentions of the respective parties, it
is necessary to consider the prayers in W.P.(MD) Nos. 23474 and 23475 of
2018, which are sought to be impugned in the present writ appeals.
6.In W.P.(MD) No. 23474 of 2018, filed by the writ petitioners 1 to 5, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
prayer is stated as follows:-
“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the 4threspondent
in respect of lands comprised in S.No.318/1J1B, situated at
Periyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, vide Patta
No.1965, and quash the same; and consequently, to direct the 4th
respondent herein to issue patta in favour of the petitioners in
respect of the properties comprised in S.Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10,
318/1J7, 318/1J9, and 318/1J2, situated at Periyampatti Village,
Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.”
7.In W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018, filed by the 1 to 10 writ petitioners,
the prayer is stated as follows:-
“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent
in respect of lands comprised in S.No.318/1J1B, situated at
Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, vide
Patta No.1965, and quash the same; and consequently, to direct
the 4th respondent herein to issue patta in favour of the petitioners
in respect of the property comprised in S.No.318/1J1, situated at
Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.”
8.The claim of the 1 to 5 writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018
is that, in Survey No.318, an extent of 15 acres - which was subsequently sub-
divided into Survey Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9, and 318/1J2,
situated at Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk - was assigned in their favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
on 29.08.2003. The said writ petitioners further contend that patta were also
issued to them pursuant to such assignment. It is their assertion that, ever since
the date of assignment, they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment
of the said survey numbers. They further state that vast extents of land
originally belonged to the Neikaraipatti Zamin. Under the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Land Reforms Act”), the Government of Tamil Nadu, by
virtue of Section 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act, declared certain portions of
the said lands as surplus. The remaining lands were excluded from the purview
of the Land Reforms Act under Section 3(22) and were retained, as they fell
within the extent permissible to be held by the 5th respondent, G.D. Narendra,
under the said Act. The identified surplus lands were subsequently acquired by
the competent statutory authorities.
9.The 1 to 5 writ petitioners claim that such surplus lands were assigned
to them on 29.08.2003 and that they have been in continuous possession and
enjoyment thereof. While so, G.D. Narendra (the 5th respondent in all the writ
petitions), claiming to be the legal heir of the former Zamin, approached the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, seeking issuance of patta in his favour. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
said request was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by such
rejection, G.D.Narendra preferred an appeal before the District Revenue
Officer, Dindigul, who, by order, set aside the rejection and directed the
issuance of patta in favour of G.D. Narendra in the year 2018. The writ
petitioners further contend that it was only after the cancellation of their patta
on 31.08.2012 that Patta No.1965 was issued in favour of G.D. Narendra on
30.07.2018
10.Similarly, the claim of the 1 to 10 writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.
23475 of 2018 is that they were assigned land on 11.05.2005 in respect of
S.F.No.318, to an extent of 23.30 acres. Pursuant to such assignment, they were
issued an “E” notice, paid the appropriate land value, subdivision fees, and land
taxes, and, on the strength of the said documents, remained in possession and
enjoyment of the said land without any hindrance. Although they paid the costs
of the land and all other required amounts to the concerned authorities, the
Revenue Department did not issue patta in their favour. In the meantime,
S.F.No.318 was subdivided into S.Nos.318/1J1A and 318/1J1B, and patta was
subsequently issued, without any right whatsoever, in favour of G.D.Narendra
in respect of S.No.318/1J1B. Aggrieved thereby, they filed W.P.(MD) No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
23475 of 2018, seeking to call for the records relating to Patta No.1965 issued
in respect of lands comprised in S.No.318/1J1B and to quash the same, and
consequently praying for the issuance of patta in their favour in respect of the
property comprised in S.No.318/1J1
11.The common contention of all the above writ petitioners is that the
subject properties were assigned to them by the competent statutory authorities,
thereby making them the lawful owners of the said properties. However, all of a
sudden, the pattas and assignments issued in their favour were cancelled on
31.08.2012, without issuing any notice to them. Aggrieved thereby, they have
filed the present writ petitions challenging Patta No.1965 issued in respect of
S.F.No.318/1J1B in favour of G.D. Narendra, the 5th respondent, and seeking a
direction to issue patta in respect of Survey Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7,
318/1J9, and 318/1J2 to the 1 to 5 writ petitioners, and in respect of S.F.No.
318/1J1 to the 1 to 10 writ petitioners.
12.The legal heir of the Neikaranpatti Zamin, G.D.Narendra, the 5th
respondent in the above writ petitions, contended before the writ Court that,
under Section 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act, out of a total extent of 4,186.18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
acres, an extent of 3,450.23 acres was declared surplus in 1981, while 735.95
acres were excluded under Section 3(22) as permissible holdings under the Act.
Despite the final order, patta for the retainable lands was not issued to him.
Consequently, the 5threspondent, G.D.Narendra, filed W.P. No. 7441 of 2009,
which was allowed; and pursuant to the directions of this Court, patta for an
extent of 8.58.0 hectares (21.19 acres) in S.F.Nos.318/2 and 318/1A1 was
issued in his favour. As S.F.No.318/2 is classified as Kammai Puramboke land
(Kanmai), the order of the District Revenue Officer appears to be erroneous.
Accordingly, G.D.Narendra filed W.P.(MD) No. 1779 of 2012, which was
allowed based on the report of the Sub-Collector, Palani. Consequently, the
patta issued for 21.19 acres (8.58.0 hectares) in S.F.Nos.318/2 and 318/1A1
was cancelled, and thereafter Patta No.1965 in respect of S.F.No.318/1J1B was
issued in his favour on 30.07.2018. This was affirmed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.(MD) No.35 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019.
13.He further contends that the lands in S.F.No.318 and the surrounding
survey numbers had been assigned in 2003 and 2005 to various beneficiaries,
including all the above writ petitioners, from the surplus lands acquired under
the Land Reforms Act. However, upon inspection based on public complaints,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
it was found that many assignees were neither in possession of the surplus lands
nor eligible under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Rules, 1962. Consequently,
the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) cancelled the assignments on
31.08.2012 under Rule 11 of the said Rules, citing misrepresentation and
procedural violations. He further asserts that the cancellation of the assignments
dated 31.08.2012 issued to the writ petitioners’ has no connection whatsoever
with the issuance of Patta No.1965 in his favour on 30.07.2018 for an extent of
21.19 acres (8.58.0 hectares).
14.He further submits that Patta No.1965, dated 30.07.2018, issued in
respect of S.F.No.318/1J1B, to an extent of 21.19 acres (8.58.0 hectares),
pertains solely to his retainable holdings under Section 3(22) and is excluded
from the purview of the Land Reforms Act. He contends that the writ
petitioners’ have no locus standi to challenge the said patta, as it relates
exclusively to permissible holdings and has no connection whatsoever with
their assigned surplus lands in Survey No.318, namely, 15 acres (1 to 5 writ
petitioners) and 23.30 acres (1 to 10 writ petitioners), which were subsequently
subdivided into S.F.Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9, 318/1J2, and no
sub-division was made in respect of S.F.No.318/1J1, respectively. All the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
aforesaid lands are surplus lands acquired under the Land Reforms Act.The writ
petitioners have not challenged the assignment cancellation order dated
31.08.2012. Instead, they have chosen to challenge Patta No.1965 issued to him
on 30.07.2018 for S.F.No.318/1J1B, which, he asserts, is not governed by the
Land Reforms Act. The cancellation of the assignments issued in favour of the
writ petitioners in respect of S.F.Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9,
318/1J2, and 318/1J1 has no nexus with the issuance of Patta No.1965 for
S.F.No.318/1J1B.
15.It is further contended that no Form E or Form F (F-Patta) was ever
issued in respect of the assignments granted to the writ petitioners 1 to 10 in
W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of 2018, and that only assignment orders had been made
in their favour in respect of S.F. No. 318, to an extent of 23.30 acres. Similarly,
in the case of the writ petitioners 1 to 5 in W.P.(MD) No. 23474 of 2018,
assignment orders were issued and pattas were subsequently granted in their
favour in respect of S.F. Nos. 318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9, and
318/1J2, covering a total extent of 15 acres. These assignments and pattas were
later cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai, vide
MRIV/196/PLN/B2 dated 31.08.2012, in accordance with due process under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
the Land Reforms Rules. Notably, all the writ petitioners did not challenge
these cancellations at the appropriate time but have instead chosen to impugn
the patta issued to the 5th respondent, G.D. Narendra, under Patta No. 1965 in
respect of S.F. No. 318/1J1B, measuring 21.19 acres.
16. He further contended that the 1 to 10 writ petitioners committed fraud
upon the Court by producing fabricated and manipulated documents, including
land value challans and kist receipts issued in other persons' names, which were
altered to reflect their own names. The 5thRespondent-G.D.Narendra firmly
asserts that the patta issued to him was solely for the retainable and excluded
lands, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.1779 of 2012 dated
25.07.2018 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
(MD) No.35 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019, and that the writ petitioners have no
legal right or standing to question the same, rendering the present writ petitions
not maintainable.
17.The official respondents, being the statutory authorities, particularly
the Sub-Collector, Palani, filed separate counter affidavits in W.P.(MD) Nos.
23474 and 23475 of 2018. In all these affidavits, the respondents consistently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
stated that the writ petitioners were assigned lands in S.F. No. 318,
Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, out of the surplus lands declared under
the Land Reforms Act, pursuant to the final notification dated 22.07.1981
issued under Section 18(1). These assignments were effected in 2003 and 2005
by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai, and pattas were
issued to the respective assignees.Subsequently, based on complaints regarding
ineligible assignees and violations of the conditions of assignment, including
premature sale and non-cultivation, a fresh survey was conducted, followed by
detailed enquiries on 03.12.2011 and 02.01.2012. The assignees, including all
the writ petitioners, appeared for enquiry on 20.01.2012, which revealed
multiple breaches of the assignment conditions. Show cause notices were
issued, and after considering the replies and objections, the assignments were
cancelled on 31.08.2012 vide R.O.C. No. MRIV/196/PLN/B2.In respect of the
writ petitioners 1 to 10, certain documents submitted in the typed set, including
receipts for land cost, sub-divisional cost, and land tax, were found to be not
genuine. No E-Notice had been issued to them, and no land value was fixed
after the issue of the assignment order. Consequently, no land cost had been
collected from them, and the extracts of challans submitted purportedly
showing payment of land value were found to be fabricated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
18. The official respondents further stated that the 5th respondent, G.D.
Narendra, filed W.P. No. 7441 of 2009 and W.P.(MD) No. 1779 of 2012,
seeking identification and patta for lands exempted under Section 3(22) of the
Land Reforms Act. Pursuant to court directions and after detailed enquiry and
examination of revenue reports, the authorities identified 21.19 acres as
retention land, excluded from the purview of the Land Reforms Act, and issued
patta in his favour in 2012 and again in 2018. The writ petitioners have no
connection with Survey Nos. 318/1A1 and 318/2, which were later sub-divided
into 318/1J1B, and patta No. 1965 was issued on 30.07.2018 in respect of S.F.
No. 318/1J1B, measuring 21.19 acres, in favour of the 5th respondent, G.D.
Narendra.The writ petitioners 1 to 5 were assigned and granted pattas in respect
of lands measuring 15 acres in Survey No. 318, which were subsequently sub-
divided into S.F. Nos. 318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J9, and 318/1J2. Similarly,
assignment orders alone were granted to the writ petitioners 1 to 10 in W.P.
(MD) No. 23475 of 2018.The official respondents further stated that the writ
petitioners were afforded ample opportunity before the cancellation of
assignments (1 to 10 writ petitioners) and pattas (1 to 5 writ petitioners), yet
they did not prefer any appeal against the cancellation order in R.O.C. No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
MRIV/196/PLN/B2 dated 31.08.2012. Instead, they approached this Court by
filing the present writ petitions after a lapse of six years, without any legal
basis.
19.The writ Court, considering the facts that the lands originally
belonging to Neikaranpatti Zamin were subjected to ceiling proceedings under
the Land Reforms Act and surplus lands were assigned to landless poor
between 1998 and 2000. The writ petitioners, such assignees, claim to have
received possession and pattas, and to be cultivating the lands. Their grievance
is that the assignments were cancelled without notice and pattas were issued in
favour of 5th Respondent-G.D.Narendra, a member of the erstwhile Zamin
family. While the official respondents claim due notice was given and deny
possession by assignees-the writ petitioners’, the writ Court considered that the
cancellation orders arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and a mere formality
following the patta granted to the 5th Respondent-G.D.Narendra. The writ Court
also raised serious concerns over how the Zamindar’s legal heir was allowed to
retain 700 acres in violation of ceiling norms. Ultimately, the cancellation
orders dated 21.08.2012 issued to the writ petitioners' and patta issued to 5th
Respondent-G.D.Narendra were quashed, and the matter was remanded for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
fresh consideration in accordance with law.
20. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals have been filed by the
legal heir of the said G.D.Narendra and the subsequent purchaser, who is said to
have purchased the property for valuable consideration from the
G.D.Narendra-5th Respondent.
21.Learned counsel for the legal heir of the Zamin, G.D. Narendra,
submitted that out of a total extent of 4,186.18 acres, 3,450.23 acres were
declared as surplus land under the Land Reforms Act, while 735.95 acres were
excluded and retained as permissible holdings under Section 3(22). Although
final orders declaring the surplus lands were published by the Government in
the Official Gazette dated 22.07.1981, patta for the retainable holdings was not
issued. Consequently, G.D.Narendra was constrained to file W.P. No.7441 of
2009 seeking issuance of patta for his permissible holdings. This Court allowed
the writ petition on 22.04.2009 and directed the RDO, Palani, to consider
G.D.Narendra’s claim within twelve weeks, who, rejected the claim. Therefore,
G.D.Narendra field appeal to District Revenue Officer, Dindigul to consider his
claim for issuance of patta. Accordingly, the DRO, Palani by proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
Na.Ka.No. 41330/2012/A4 dated 02.07.2012, directed issuance of patta in the
name of G.D.Narendra in Periyammapatti Village in S.F.No.318/1A1 and 318/2
which was passed based on the report filed by the Assistant Commissioner
(Land Reforms), Madurai in Na.Ka.No.AA2/MRIV/196 dated 28.06.2012. Out
of 244.10 acres in S.F.No. 318/1, an extent of 222.91 acres had been declared
surplus, for which G.D. Narendra had received compensation. As he was
entitled to patta for 21.19 acres in S.F.No. 318/1, the DRO, however,
erroneously issued patta in S.F.No. 318/2, which is classified in the revenue
records as “Kummalam Paaraikulam” – a kanmai – unfit for cultivation or any
other use. Aggrieved, he made a representation dated 27.06.2018 to the District
Collector, but no orders were passed. Before filing the said representation dated
27.06.2018, he filed W.P. (MD) No. 1779 of 2012, this Hon’ble Court, by order
dated 25.07.2018, directed the respondents to issue patta in S. No. 318/1J1B
instead of S.No.318/1A1 and S.No.318/2, based on the inspection report and
enquiry conducted by the Sub-Collector, Palani, in proceedings Na.Ka.No.
1458/2009/A5 dated 18.07.2018. Pursuant thereto, the DRO, by proceedings
No.41330/2009/D6 dated 30.07.2018, issued Patta No. 1965 in respect of S. No.
318/1J1B to an extent of 21.19 acres (8.58.0 hectares).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
22.It was further submitted that portions of lands measuring 15 acres in
Survey No.318, which were subsequently subdivided into S.F.Nos. 318/1J5,
318/1J10, 318/1J9, 318/1J2 and 318 were assigned in 2003 and 2005 to various
individuals, including the 1 to 10 writ petitioners and 1 to 5 writ petitioners,
respectively, from the surplus lands; however, pursuant to public complaints
and a detailed enquiry, it was revealed that several assignees were either not in
possession or otherwise ineligible under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Rules,
1962. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) cancelled such
assignmentsby proceedings in MR/IV/196/PLN/B2 dated 31.08.2012 under
Rule 11 to an extent of 15 acers and 23.30 acers, citing misrepresentation and
breach of conditions. He further submits that the said cancellation proceedings
have no nexus whatsoever with the patta granted to G.D.Narendra vide Patta
No.1965 dated 30.07.2018 for an extent of 21.19 acres in S.F.No.318/1J1B,
which pertains solely to the exempted lands retained under Section 3(22) of the
Land Reforms Act. He submitted that all the writ petitioners, whose claims
pertain to different sub-divisions viz., S.F.Nos. 318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7,
318/1J9, 318/1J2 and 318/1J have not chosen to challenge the cancellation of
assignment orders in MR/IV/196/PLN/B2 dated 31.08.2012, but have instead
questioned the patta issued in favour of the G.D.Narendra, despite having no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
legal right, title, or interest over the said S.F.No.318/1J1B retainable land which
was excluded under Section 3(22) of the Land Reforms Act.
23.He further contended that the 1 to 10 writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.
23475 of 2018 had produced fabricated and manipulated revenue documents,
including tampered land value challans and kist receipts, with the intent to
mislead the Court. It was his categorical submission that the patta granted to the
5th respondent- G.D.Narendra, was lawfully issued pursuant to the directions of
this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1779 of 2012, dated 25.07.2018. Some of the
assignees of surplus land, whose assignments had been subsequently cancelled,
challenged the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.1779 of 2012. However, the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.35 of 2019, by order dated
02.04.2019, affirmed the order passed in W.P.(MD) No. 1779 of 2012 dated
25.07.2018. Therefore, the present writ petitions are not only devoid of merit
but were also filed with malafide intent, suppressing material facts. However,
the learned Single Judge, without appreciating these vital aspects, improperly
allowed the writ petitions and set aside the patta granted in favour of the
5threspondent, G.D. Narendra. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ
appeals have been preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
24.Learned senior counsel for the subsequent purchaser, (appellant in
W.A.(MD) No.695 and 1117 of 2024) would submit that she had acquired the
subject property by virtue of a duly registered sale deed in Documents No.
2288/2018 dated 27.08.2018 on the file of the Joint-II, Sub-Registrar, Palani,
executed by G.D.Narendra, the 5th Respondent and subsequently, she purchased
property from the legal heir of G.D.Narendra in Document No.3202/2020 dated
11.11.2020 on the file of the Joint-II, Sub-Registrar, Palani, for valid and lawful
consideration, thereby acquiring absolute, indefeasible, and bona fide title to the
said property. It was contended that all the writ petitioners, who were allegedly
assigned different portions of surplus lands, have not even assailed the
cancellation orders dated 31.08.2012, which were passed after due enquiry and
following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1962. Despite remaining passive and
acquiescent for over six years, the writ petitioners have now approached this
Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, without offering any explanation for the inordinate delay
and with gross suppression of material and relevant facts, thereby abusing the
process of law and the judicial forum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
25.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the subject property in
S.F.No.318/1J1B purchased by the appellant bears no legal or factual nexus
with the surplus lands assigned and patta issued to 1 to 5 writ petitioners and it
were far away from the subject property in respect of surplus lands in S.F.Nos.
318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J9 and 318/1J2 which was also subsequently cancelled
on 31.08.2012.Moreover, no surplus lands were handed over and sub-divisions
were made in respect of S.F.No.318 to the 1 to 10 writ petitioners as per
assignment order dated 11.05.2005 in M.R/196/Palani/AA2 and thus, they have
no locus standi, enforceable legal right, or cause of action to question the
validity of the appellant’s title or interfere with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment thereof. Learned senior counsel emphasized that the appellant is a
bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any alleged infirmities, and her
rights are protected not only under civil law but also by the settled principles of
equity and justice. However, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge,
rendered without proper appreciation of the factual matrix and applicable legal
principles, is now being invoked by the writ petitioners in an attempt to unsettle
the appellant’s vested rights.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
26.He further submitted that the writ Court failed to appreciate that the
indirect challenge, made after a lapse of six years, amounts to suppression of
material facts and playing fraud upon the Court.
27.Learned counsel for all the writ petitioners, (the 1 to 5 respondents
and 1 to 10 respondents herein in the above writ appeals) would submit that
ever since the date of assignment of surplus lands, the writ petitioners have
been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the assigned surplus lands.
However, without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of being
heard, the patta granted in respect of 1 to 5 writ petitioners in S.F.Nos. 318/1J5,
318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9, and 318/1J2 and in respect of 1 to 10 writ
petitioners, the assignments in S.F.No.318/1J1 were arbitrarily cancelled,
amounting to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He further
submit that proceedings under the Land Reforms Act were initiated, pursuant to
which surplus lands came to vest with the Government. From out of such
surplus lands, assignments were granted in favour of landless poor, and the writ
petitioners are among such assignees, and patta were granted in S.F.Nos.
318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9 to the 1 to 5 writ petitioners, and
assignments were issued in respect of 1 to 10 writ petitioners in S.F.No.318.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
The writ petitioners assert that possession was duly handed over to them and
that patta and assignments were issued accordingly. They continue to cultivate
the said lands. Their grievance is that the assignments and pattas were cancelled
all of a sudden behind their backs on 31.08.2012, without any notice or enquiry,
thus depriving the writ petitioners of their rights over the property.
28.He further submits that up to 2018, the patta and assignments in
respect of the said surplus lands had been held by these writ petitioners, and the
patta stood in the names of the writ petitioners only. However, all of a sudden,
without any notice or any proceedings, Patta No.1965 was granted in favour of
G.D.Narendra in respect of the very same property. Further, pattas were
subsequently issued in favour of G.D.Narendra, a member of the erstwhile
Neikaranpatti Zamin family. Therefore, the writ petitioners challenged the Patta
No.1965 issued in respect of S.F.No.318/1J1B in favour of G.D.Narendra, the
5th Respondent in the writ petition. In the above circumstances, the learned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioners prayed for dismissal of the present
writ appeals.
29. The official respondent in the above writ appeals, namely, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, has filed separate counter affidavits in
W.A.(MD) Nos. 1572 and 1573 of 2023, affirming the counter affidavits filed
by the Sub-Collector, Palani, in W.P.(MD).Nos.22474 and 22475/2018. It is
stated therein that the writ petitioners were assigned surplus lands in S.F.No.
318, Periyammapatti Village, in 2003 and 2005 by the Assistant Commissioner
(Land Reforms), Madurai, with pattas issued accordingly. Upon receiving
complaints regarding ineligible assignees and violations such as premature sale
and non-cultivation, a survey and enquiries conducted in late 2011 and early
2012 revealed breaches by all the assignees, including the writ petitioners.
Show cause notices were issued, objections were considered, and the
assignments were cancelled on 31.08.2012. The documents filed by petitioners
1 to 10 claiming payment of land value were found to be bogus. The
5threspondent in the writ petitions(G.D.Narendra), separately obtained patta for
21.19 acres of retention land excluded under Section 3(22) of the Land Reforms
Act, which is unconnected to the writ petitioners’ surplus lands. The said
official respondent have further emphasized that the writ petitioners were given
due opportunity prior to the cancellation, did not prefer any appeal, and have
approached this Court after a lapse of six years without any valid grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
30.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the
pleadings, documentary evidences, and reports furnished in the form of typed
sets of papers, and examined the connected revenue records produced by the
official respondents from the Revenue Department along with their counter
affidavits.
31.Before delving into the merits of the present case, it is necessary to
first examine the statutory scheme and the relevant provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (in short, “the
Land Reforms Act”), which governs the subject matter under consideration. The
said enactment was introduced with the primary objective of ensuring the
equitable distribution of agricultural land by imposing a ceiling on the extent of
land that can be held by an individual or a family unit and distributing the
excess land to the landless and other eligible members of the rural population.
The legislation is a welfare-oriented measure aimed at preventing the
concentration of land in the hands of a few and facilitating the redistribution of
surplus land to landless and marginal farmers, subject to the strict conditions
prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)
Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Land Reforms Rules”) framed thereunder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
32. In this context, the Land Reforms Act prescribes ceiling limits for
different categories of landholders and provides a detailed mechanism for the
identification, declaration, acquisition, and redistribution of surplus lands, as
well as for the retention of permitted holdings. It also governs lands excluded
from the ceiling, including those not used for agricultural purposes, insofar as
they fall within the purview of the Land Reforms Act. Various procedural
safeguards and definitional clauses are embedded within the said Act to ensure
compliance with constitutional mandates and to strike a balance between public
interest and private rights.
33.The Government of Tamil Nadu has resolved to enact legislation
prescribing the maximum extent of agricultural land that a person may hold.
This ceiling applies to all agricultural lands held by any person and extends
only to lands capable of being used for agricultural purposes. The Land
Reforms Act does not apply to urban lands that are not used for agricultural
purposes. Therefore, in order to effectively adjudicate upon the claims and
counterclaims, and to address the serious concerns expressed by the writ Court
as to how the Zamindar’s legal heir was permitted to retain 700 acres in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
violation of the ceiling norms, it is imperative to examine the underlying
legislative intent, the scope of the statutory provisions, and their applicability to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The following provisions are
essential for determining the issues involved herein.
34.As per the Land Reforms Act, as amended in 1970, the ceiling area
prescribed under Section 5 for every person is 15 standard acres. The term
“person,” as defined under Section 3(34), includes any company, family, firm,
society, or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The word
“land” is defined in Section 3(22) to mean agricultural land, i.e., land which is
used or is capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes
subservient thereto. Section 7 is the operative provision, which lays down that,
on and from the date of commencement of the Land Reforms Act, no person
shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 8 relates to
the furnishing of returns by persons holding land in excess of the ceiling area,
while Section 9 deals with the collection of information. Section 10 provides
for the preparation and publication of a draft statement in respect of land held in
excess of the ceiling area. Section 11 empowers the Authorised Officer to
decide questions of title in certain cases, and Section 12 provides for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
publication of the final statement.
35.The next relevant provision is Section 18, which enables the
Government to take over surplus land in terms of the final statement published
under Section 12 or Section 14. Section 18-B confers power on the Government
to modify the notification issued under Section 10(1) consequent upon
corrections made under Section 15. Section 18-C empowers the Government to
cancel or modify notifications issued under Section 18(1) in certain
circumstances. Sections 18-D and other consequential provisions relate to the
divesting and vesting of land that is either excluded or newly included, as the
case may be. In cases where the provisions of the Land Reforms Act are
invoked, the surplus land shall be deemed to have been acquired for a public
purpose and shall vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances, from the
date of commencement of the said Act, but only after the publication of the
notification under sub-section (1) of Section 18.
36. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to briefly refer to the
procedural framework under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
on Land) Rules, 1962, which govern the implementation of land ceiling laws.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
The Rules prescribe the filing of returns by landowners (Rule 3), verification
and enquiry by the Authorised Officer (Rules 4 to 6), issuance of notices and
publication of draft and final statements identifying surplus land (Rules 5, 8,
and 9), and the procedure for taking possession (Rule 11). They also provide for
maintenance of registers (Rule 12), assignment of surplus land (Rule 13), and
appellate remedies (Rule 15). These safeguards ensure compliance with the
principles of natural justice before declaring any land as surplus.
37.Now, adverting to the procedural framework under the Land Reforms
Rules, it is incumbent upon the authorities to ensure strict compliance with the
prescribed statutory mechanism for any lawful and sustainable assignment of
land. Rule 3 mandates the preparation and maintenance of accurate records
reflecting the persons in possession of land as on 15.02.1970, which forms the
foundational basis for further proceedings. Pursuant thereto, a Form B notice is
statutorily required to be issued to call for applications from eligible persons.
Following this, an enquiry must be duly conducted in accordance with Form D,
culminating in the proposed assignment under Rule 8.Upon such assignment,
the competent authority is required to serve a Form E notice demanding
payment of the requisite consideration. It is only after full and proper remittance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
thereof that a Form-F Patta may be issued thereafter only after making sub-
division, the surplus land will be handed over to the assiginees. It is pertinent to
note that if any of the conditions violated, the assignment will be cancelled with
due process of law under Rule 11. The issuance of such patta is not a mere
formality but a conclusive act by which the land vests absolutely in the
assignee, as per Rule 9. Absent such compliance, no legal or enforceable rights
can be said to accrue in favour of the purported assignee.
38.Further, Rule 11 confers overriding powers upon the Government to
cancel or modify any assignment within a period of five years, if it is found that
the assignment was inequitably granted, contravenes the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, or is vitiated by
non-compliance with the mandatory conditions stipulated under Rule 8. The
said power may be exercised either suo motu or upon appropriate
representation, and any assignment in violation of these statutory prescriptions
is liable to be set aside in law.
39.In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, and upon perusal of the
pleadings and the relevant revenue records, it stands as an undisputed fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
the Government had initiated proceedings under the Land Reforms Act,
culminating in the issuance of a notification under Section 18(1) as early as
22.07.1981. As on that date, G.D.Narendra, (the 5th respondent in W.P.(MD)
Nos. 23474 and 23475 of 2018), was found to be in possession and enjoyment
of a total extent of 4,186.61 acres of land, out of which 3,450.23 acres were
declared as surplus under Section 12 of the Land Reforms Act. The land
situated in S.F.No.318 formed part of the surplus land covered under the
notification dated 22.07.1981 issued under Section 18(1). The remaining extent
of 735.95 acres was retained by G.D.Narendra as part of his permissible holding
under Section 3(22) of the Land Reforms Act and was specifically excluded
from the purview of the said notification on the ground that these lands were
not fit for cultivation. These lands are situated in the villages of
Periyammapatti, Chitharevu, West Thathanayakkanpatti, and Ravimangalam in
Palani Taluk.
40.As per the final notification dated 22.07.1981, issued under Section
18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961, and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the following
particulars were recorded:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
S.No. Particulars Extent Remarks
(Acres)
(i) Total extent of land held by G.D. 4,271.20 -
Narendra in Namuna 6 – Form under
Section 10(1)
(ii) Extent of land allowed to be retained as 48.43 Retainable
per final statement under Section 12, land
reflected in Form 12 (published on
28.02.1981)
(iii) Extent of tope land exempted under 36.59 Exempted
Section 73(vii) r/w Annexure I to Form land
No.6 (Annexure-H) under Section 10(1)
(iv) Extent of proposed surplus land under 4,186.61 Proposed
Section 10(1), as per Form No.6 surplus
(Annexure-A)
(v) Extent of surplus land taken possession 3,450.23 Surplus
under final statement in Form 12 dated land taken
28.02.1981 over
(vi) Extent confirmed as surplus in Final 3,450.23 Surplus
Notification in G.O.Ms. No.1389, confirmed
Revenue, dated 11.06.1981, published on
22.07.1981
(vii) Extent excluded and retainable under 1,075.65 Retainable/
Section 3(22) as per publication under Excluded
Section 10(5) dated 23.09.1970. from Land
Reforms
Act
(viii) Actual extent handed over as retainable 735.95 Retainable/
and excluded land under Section 3(22) as Excluded
per above (vii). from Land
Reforms
Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
41.The balance extent of 735.95 acres stood classified as “excluded” and
“retainable holdings” within the meaning of Section 3(22) of the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, on the specific ground
that the said lands were incapable of cultivation and, therefore, did not fall
within the statutory ambit of the Land Reforms Act. Consequently, the said
extent was neither vested with the Government as surplus land under the
provisions of the Act nor was any compensation determined or disbursed in
respect thereof to the 5th respondent, G.D. Narendra, who continued to hold the
same as of right. The aforesaid factual position is borne out by the
contemporaneous revenue records of irrefutable authenticity and stands duly
and unequivocally affirmed in the separate counter affidavits filed by the Sub-
Collector, Palani, and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani.
42.In view of the above, the concern expressed by the writ Court over
how the Zamindar’s legal heir was allegedly permitted to retain 700 acres in
violation of the ceiling norms - along with its observation that, when confronted
with something fundamentally illegal or shocking to the judicial conscience, the
Court cannot turn away - is wholly misconceived. The authorities had acted
strictly in accordance with law, and the records unequivocally establish that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
retention of 735.95 acres by the erstwhile Zamindar’s family was neither
arbitrary nor illegal. The assumption of the writ Court that the authorities failed
to act or overlooked an illegality is unfounded and untenable.
43.The revenue records and the final notification issued under Section
18(1) of the Land Reforms Act by the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated
22.07.1981, clearly show that the said extent of 735.95 acres was lawfully
classified as exempted and retainable holdings under Section 3(22) of the Act,
on the ground that the lands were not fit for cultivation and, therefore, fell
outside the scope of the Land Reforms Act. This extent was neither taken over
as surplus land nor was any compensation payable. Accordingly, the findings
and views of the writ Court regarding the alleged illegal retention of a vast
extent of land are erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Land Reforms
Act.
44.G.D.Narendra addressed a request to the Assistant Commissioner of
Land Reforms, Madurai, seeking release of the lands and re-transfer of patta in
respect of the balance extent of 735.95 acres, which had been classified as
exempted and retainable holdings under Section 3(22) of the Act, on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
that the said lands were not fit for cultivation and, therefore, did not fall within
the purview of the Land Reforms Act. This extent was neither taken over as
surplus land nor was any compensation paid to G.D. Narendra, the fifth
respondent in the said writ petitions. Pursuant to his request, the Assistant
Commissioner of Land Reforms, by proceedings in Pro.Roc.No.G1/801/2004,
dated 15.06.2004, ordered the release of an extent of 108.51.0 hectares in
S.F.No.455/3 of Periyammapatti Village in Palani Taluk.
45.Notwithstanding the fact that final orders were passed declaring the
surplus lands by Government Notification published in the Official Gazette
dated 22.07.1981 and said proceedings dated 15.06.2004, the authorities failed
to issue patta in respect of balance permitted retainable holdings to the said
G.D. Narendra. Consequently, he filed W.P. No.7441 of 2009, seeking issuance
of patta for the lands eligible to be retained. This Court, by order dated
22.04.2009, allowed the said writ petition and directed the revenue authorities
to consider his claim for patta. Pursuant to the said direction, the District
Revenue Officer (DRO), Dindigul, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.41330/2009/A4
dated 02.07.2012, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Land
Reforms), Madurai, in Na.Ka.AA2/MR4/196 dated 28.06.2012, passed an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
directing issuance of patta in favour of G.D. Narendra for the land in S. No.
318/1A1 and 318/2, to an extent of 21.19 acers situated in Periyammapatti
Village.
46.As seen from the revenue records filed in the typed set of papers, out
of the total extent of 244.10 acres in S.F.No.318/1, an extent of 222.91 acres
was declared as surplus, and G.D.Narendra was entitled to patta for the balance
extent of 21.19 acres within the said survey number. However, the land covered
in S.F.No.318/2, noted as “Kummalam Paarai Kulam” (KanmaiPorambokku), is
classified as a kanmai (water body) in the revenue records and is not fit for
cultivation or for any other usage. In view of the above, G.D. Narendra
submitted a representation dated 27.06.2018 to the District Collector, Dindigul,
seeking appropriate rectification despite that no orders were passed on the said
representation. However, before filing the said representation dated 27.06.2018,
G.D.Narendra filed W.P.(MD) No. 1779 of 2012 and, in his written
submissions dated 16.07.2018, he pointed out that since S.F.No.318/2 was
shown as “Kanmai” during the UDR survey, he sought allotment of alternate
land in the same field to the same extent, for which he had been granted
exemption under the Land Reforms Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
47.Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 25.07.2018, and as his
representation was already under consideration, the official respondents
conducted a detailed enquiry. The Sub-Collector, Palani, submitted his report to
the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, recommending suitable action. The
District Revenue Officer accepted the recommendation vide Na.Ka.No.
1458/2009/A5 dated 18.07.2018. Accordingly, the DRO passed proceedings in
Roc.No.41330/2009/D6 dated 30.07.2018, ordering issuance of patta in
S.F.Nos.318/1A1 and 318/2, while cancelling the patta for S.F.No.318/2. The
sub-divisions in S.F.Nos. 318/1A1 and 318/1A2 were merged as S.F.No.
318/1A. The surplus land in S.F.No.318/1J1 (73.95.5 hectares) was further
subdivided into S.F. Nos. 318/1J1A and 318/1J1B. In S.F.No.318/1J1B, an
extent of 8.58.0 hectares (21.19 acres) was ordered to be transferred in the name
of G.D.Narendra. Accordingly, necessary mutations were effected in the
revenue records, resulting in the following changes:
(a) S.F. Nos. 318/1A1 and 318/1A2 merged as S.F. No. 318/1A = 5.05.5
hectares;
(b) S.F. No. 318/1J1 subdivided into 318/1J1A = 65.37.5 hectares, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
318/1J1B = 8.58.0 hectares (21.19 acres).
48.In consequence of the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul, in Na.Ka.No. 41330/2009/D6, dated 30.07.2018, Patta No.1965 was
issued in the name of G.D. Narendra, the fifth respondent herein, for an extent
of 21.19 acres (equivalent to 8.58.0 hectares) in S.F.No.318/1J1B. The issuance
of the said patta was preceded by detailed field inspections and enquiries
conducted by various revenue officials, including the District Revenue Officer,
who, upon verification of the relevant revenue records, concluded that the land
in question formed part of the permissible retainable holdings of the fifth
respondent and was not hit by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
Consequently, the District Revenue Officer, by the aforesaid proceedings,
ordered the grant of patta in favour of G.D.Narendra, which was accordingly
issued as Patta No.1965. As the issuance of the said patta was in conformity
with Land Reforms Act and supported by official records, the findings of the
writ Court in setting aside Patta No.1965 is wholly erroneous and contrary to
the materials on record.
49.The above indisputable facts are traceable from the revenue records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
and are duly supported by the separate counter affidavits filed by the official
respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in W.P.(MD) Nos. 23474
and 23475 of 2018, dated 23.06.2022, is per incuriam, inasmuch as the writ
Court rendered its findings without considering the relevant statutory
provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the earlier orders of this Court in writ
petitions filed by G.D. Narendra, which are directly applicable to the case on
hand. Therefore, without going into the factual foundation on which the patta
was granted, the writ Court misdirected itself in arriving at its conclusion. The
impugned order, having set aside Patta No. 1965, is therefore unsustainable in
law, contrary to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, and liable to be set
aside.
50.Before adverting to the claim of the writ petitioners, to the effect that
no notice was issued prior to the cancellation of their assignment and patta, it is
relevant to note that in 2019, K.Srinivasan and four others filed W.A.(MD) No.
35 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.
1779 of 2012, dated 25.07.2018, on the ground that Patta No.1965 had been
issued in favour of G.D.Narendra after allegedly cancelling their assignment
dated 17.04.2003. The appellants contended that they had preferred an appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
before the District Revenue Officer (DRO) challenging the cancellation of their
assignment; however, before the disposal of the said appeal, Patta No.1965 had
already been issued in favour of G.D. Narendra, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No.1779 of 2012.
51.The said writ appeal was disposed of by granting liberty to the
appellants to pursue the statutory appeal already filed by them, based on the
submissions made by both sides, including the learned counsel representing the
Revenue Department. As fairly admitted by all the parties concerned, the
Division Bench of this Court concluded that the surplus lands assigned to the
appellants were distinct and different from the lands excluded under Section
3(22) of the Land Reforms Act, as reflected in Patta No.1965 issued to G.D.
Narendra, and that they had no right, title, or interest over the lands comprised
in Survey Nos. 461 and 318/1J1B. The Division Bench further held that “….no
interference in the order of the learned Single Judge is required…..”and
accordingly affirmed order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.1779 of
2012.
52.Similarly, other assignees, to whom the portions of the said surplus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
lands assigned, had also approached this Court by way of writ petitions seeking
identical reliefs. For instance, in W.P.(MD) No. 292 of 2013 filed by one
Tamilarasi, W.P.(MD) No. 17554 of 2017 filed by one N. Manigandan, and
W.P.(MD) No. 20087 of 2017 filed by K.Raja and four others, the said
assignees/petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of lands comprised in Survey Nos.
441/49 and 441/50 situated at Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul
District, as well as to quash the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Madurai, in MRIV/196/Palani/AA2 dated 30.08.2012 and DRO
proceedings Na.Ka.41330/2009/D6 dated 30.07.2018, pursuant to which patta
had been issued in favour of G.D.Narendra. Upon the filing of a categorical
counter affidavit by the Land Reforms authorities, duly fortified by supporting
revenue records, it was specifically averred that the lands in question had no
connection whatsoever with the retainable holdings or excluded lands as
defined under Section 3(22) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, in respect of which Patta No.1965 had been
granted to G.D. Narendra. In light of such stand of the official respondents, the
said writ petitions were not pursued further and were consequently withdrawn
on 27.10.2015, 14.11.2017, and 18.12.2018, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
53.Insofar as the present writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.23474 and
23475 of 2018 in the case on hand are concerned, the situation stands on an
entirely different footing, as their claim rests upon misrepresentation, forged
documents, and manipulation of revenue records, as is evident from the
materials on record. It is seen that the writ petitioners claim assignment and
patta in respect of surplus lands, which were subsequently cancelled on
31.08.2012, and they are now seeking to assert rights on the strength of
misrepresentation, fabricated documents and tampered revenue entries, as
clearly established by the following findings.
54.The writ petitioners have filed the present writ petitions in W.P.(MD)
Nos.23474 and 23475 of 2018 seeking to call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.318/1J1B, situated at
Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, covered under Patta
No.1965, and to quash the same; and consequently, to direct the revenue
authorities to issue patta in favour of the 1 to 5 writ petitioners in respect of the
lands comprised in S.F.Nos.318/1J5, 318/1J10, 318/1J7, 318/1J9 318/1J2; and
1 to 10 writ petitioners in respect of S.F.No.318/1J1, situated in Periyammapatti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
55.It is on record that an extent of 3,450 acres of land situated in and
around Palani Taluk was declared as surplus, and a final notification under
Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)
Act, 1961, was published on 22.07.1981. The surplus lands were taken over by
the Government, and their classification in the revenue records was mutated as
“Surplus Lands.” The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai, also
initiated proceedings to assign the surplus lands to landless poor agricultural
labourers. The surplus land in S.F. No.318 was one among those covered under
the said Section 18(1) notification, and an extent of 240.29 acres therein was
declared surplus in terms of the said notification and rest of the lands to an
extent of 21.19 acers covered with stony area and covered under Section 3(22)
of the Land Reforms Act have not been declared as surplus and left out from
fixation of land ceiling proceedings. All the writ petitioners were assigned lands
from surplus land in S.F.No.318 from an extent of 240.29 acers.
56.In respect of the 1 to 5 writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of
2018, the assignments were granted in the surplus lands comprised in S.F.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
318 of Periyammapatti Village by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Madurai, in proceedings Roc.No.MRIV/196/B2 dated 29.08.2003. Pursuant to
the assignments, the said surplus lands were subdivided, and patta was mutated
in the revenue records as follows:-
S.No. S.F.Nos. Extent Patta No. Name of the assignee /
Allotted Petitioner in W.P.(MD)
1 318/1J5 1.21.5 1491 M.Sivakumar
1st Writ Petitioner
2 318/1J10 1.21.5 1496 K.Chellammal.
2nd Writ Petitioner
3 318/1J7 1.21.5 1493 M.Jothiyammal.
3rd Writ Petitioner
4 318/1J9 1.21.5 1495 M.Ravikumar.
4th Writ Petitioner
5 318/1J11 1.21.5 1488 K.Muniappan.
5th Writ Petitioner
Total 15 acers or 6.07.5 Hectares
57.The above tabulated statement, as drawn from the separate counter
affidavits filed by the Sub-Collector in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018 and the
counter affidavit filed by the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, in the present
W.A.(MD) No.1572 of 2023, is corroborated by the revenue records. The entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
extent of surplus land, measuring 240.29 acres, was assigned in favour of 99
persons, including the 1 to 5 writ petitioners, vide proceedings of the Assistant
Commissioner (Land Reforms) in MRIV/196/Palani/B2, on various dates,
namely, 29.08.2003, 17.04.2004, and 11.05.2005.
58.In the meantime, during the year 2011-2012, it was brought to the
notice of the Government by the Tamil Nadu Vivasayeegal Sangam that certain
ineligible persons had obtained assignment orders in respect of lands in
Periyammapatti Village and had sold the assigned lands to well-to-do persons
before the expiry of twenty years, thereby committing a breach of the conditions
of assignment. During the Assembly Session of 2011–2012, the Minister for
Revenue announced that the surplus lands declared under the Land Reforms Act
in Periyammapatti Village would be surveyed afresh and assigned to eligible
persons. Owing to multiple complaints received from various quarters, the
District Administration deputed a team of surveyors, and the entire surplus
lands in Periyammapatti Village were surveyed. Enquiries were also conducted
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, to ascertain the status of the lands.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
59.In the course of the enquiry, 73 ineligible assignments, including those
held by the 1 to 5 writ petitioners, were identified. It was further ascertained
that some assignees had failed to bring the lands under cultivation from the
inception, while others had violated the conditions of assignment.
Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai,
submitted a detailed report to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, in
Roc.No.196/Palani/B2, dated 03.12.2011. Thereafter, the Assistant
Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai, initiated proceedings to cancel the
said assignments, after following the procedure prescribed under the rules, in
which the 1 to 5 writ petitioners were also included.
60.It is on record, as borne out from Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the counter
affidavit filed by the Sub-Collector, Palani, in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018,
and Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palani, in W.A.(MD) No.1572 of 2023, as well as from the
show cause notice enclosed in the typed set of papers that, show cause notices
in Roc.No.MRIV/196/Palani, dated 02.01.2012, were issued to the 1 to 5 writ
petitioners. They appeared for enquiry on 20.01.2012, filed their statements,
and were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to submit their objections.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
61.Based on the detailed enquiry report submitted to the Commissioner of
Land Reforms, Chennai, in Roc.No.196/Palani/B2, dated 03.12.2011, and upon
further enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Palani, it was revealed that the father of the writ petitioners was a retired
Government servant drawing pension and owning other lands, and therefore did
not fall within the category of “landless poor.” The 1 to 5 writ petitioners in
W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018 were all sons and daughters of the same family.
Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai, cancelled
their assignments by order dated 31.08.2012 in Roc. No. MRIV/196/PLN/B2,
which was duly served on them.
62.The said writ petitioners did not prefer any appeal against the
cancellation of assignment order in R.oc.No.MRIV/196/PLN/B2 dated
31.08.2012 before the appellate forum but, instead, filed W.P.(MD) No.23474
of 2018 after a lapse of sixyears. The relevant paragraphs, as culled from the
counter affidavits filed by the Revenue Department and corroborated by the
revenue records, are reproduced below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
“Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-
Collector, Palani, in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018 are extracted
below:-
6.I humbly submit that due to multiple complaints from various
corners, a team of surveyors were allotted by District
Administration and the entire surplus lands of Periammapatty
village were surveyed. Enquires were also made by Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palani to ascertain the status of land. 73
ineligible assignments were identified. It was also ascertained
that some of the assignees had not put the land for cultivation
from the initial stage itself. Some others had violated the
conditions of assignment. Hence a detailed report was submitted
to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai by the Assistant
Commissioner (LR) Madurai in his Roc. No. 196/Palani /B2,
dated 3.12.2011. Subsequently action was initiated by the
Assistant Commissioner (LR) Madurai to cancel the assignment
after following the Rules. The writ petitioners are also among
them.
7. I humbly submit that before cancellation, Show Cause Notices
were issued to the assignees vide MRIV/196/Palani dated
02.01.2012. The assignees appeared for enquiry on 20.01.2012
and filed their statements. Writ petitioners are also attended
enquiry and filed their statements. It was ascertained that the
father of the writ petitioners is a retired Government servant who
is getting pension and is having some other Lands. He is not fall
under the category of landless poor. The writ petitioners are all
sons/daughters of him. Hence these assignments were cancelled
after affording due chances to them and cancellation orders were
issued an 31.08.2012 in ROC No.MRIV/196/PLN/B2 and served
on the writ petitioners.
8. I humbly submit that aggrieved to the said order no petitioners
filed Appeal before the 2nd Respondent. But they filed this writ
petition after a period 5 years which cannot be considered before
Limitation Act and entire contention deserves no consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
Paragraph No.10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani in W.A.(MD) No.1572 of
2023 are extracted below:-
10.I respectfully submit that the 1 to 5 Respondent/writ
petitioners were issued show cause notices on 02.01.2012 in
MRIV/196/Palani and enquired the Respondents/1to 5 writ
petitioners after affording sufficient time and heard. During the
course of enquiry the 1 to 5 Respondents/Writ Petitioners herein
were attended and filed their objections before the Assistant
Commissioner (Land Reforms) Madurai by suppressing lot of
facts.
11.I respectfully submit that the father of the 1 to 5
Respondents/Writ Petitioners is a retired Government servant
getting pension and the respondents/writ petitioners owned some
other lands in S.No.243/3, 239/5A, 243/2A2, 234/2A1 and
240/1B in Periyammapatti Village. Further all of the 1 to 5
Respondents/Writ Petitioners belonging to same family and
deceived the Government officials and obtained the surplus land
Assignment in favour of them. Hence, the assignments were
cancelled after affording sufficient opportunity and cancellation
order were issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Land
Reforms) Madurai on 31.08.2012 in Roc.No.MRIV/196/PLN/B2
and served to the 1 to 5 Respondents/Writ Petitioner.
12. I respectfully submit that aggrievate to the afore said order
the 1 to 5 Respondents/Petitioners had not filed any Appeal
before the Appellate Forum, but filed the Writ Petition before
the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018 after a period
of 5 years which is barred by Limitation Act.”.
63.In so far as writ petitioners 1 to 10 in W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of 2018
are concerned, the factual matrix is distinguishable from that of writ petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
1 to 5, inasmuch as no pattas were ever issued in their favour. They were merely
granted assignment orders vide Roc. No. MRIV/196/B2, dated 11.05.2005, in
respect of lands comprised in S.F.No.318. No sub-division proceedings were
undertaken in respect of the said survey number, and the revenue records
continued to retain the original classification without any demarcation or
mutation in their favour. At the initial stage, during 2004, statutory “B” notices
were issued inviting applications from eligible persons for the assignment of
126.60 acres in S.F.No.318. The writ petitioners 1 to 10 also submitted
applications pursuant thereto. Thereafter, “D” notices were issued for the
purpose of conducting enquiries, and all applicants were subjected to enquiry
proceedings on various dates during 2004 and 2006. Sixty-six persons were
adjudged eligible, and accordingly, assignment orders in
Roc.No.MRIV/196/B2, dated 11.05.2005, were issued to the writ petitioners 1
to 10. Subsequently, upon receipt of multiple complaints from various quarters
regarding irregularities, the District Administration deputed a survey team to
undertake a comprehensive survey of the entire surplus lands in Periyammapatti
Village. As a result, further proceedings in respect of the lands covered by the
aforesaid assignment orders came to a standstill. No statutory “E” notices were
issued, nor were any “F” deeds (F-Patta) executed in favour of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
petitioners 1 to 10. It was further found that most of the assignees had allowed
the lands to remain fallow and had thereafter alienated them in favour of
affluent individuals, including the writ petitioners 1 to 10. As per the enquiry
report submitted to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, in Roc.No.
196/Palani/B2, dated 03.12.2011, and after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing through issuance of enquiry notice in Roc.No.MRIV/196/Palani/B2,
dated 17.11.2011, fixing the hearing on 30.12.2011 at 11.00 a.m. to the
assignees, including the writ petitioners 1 to 10, and upon due consideration of
their statements, the assignment orders issued on 25.09.1983, 29.08.2003,
17.04.2004, and 11.05.2005 were cancelled, including those pertaining to the
writ petitioners 1 to 10, vide Roc. No. MRIV/196/Palani/AA1, dated
31.08.2012.
64.The 1 to 10 writ petitioners did not avail the statutory remedy of
appeal against Roc. No. MRIV/196/Palani/AA1, dated 31.08.2012, before the
competent appellate forum. Instead, after an inordinate lapse of six years, they
instituted W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of 2018, relying upon forged and fabricated
documents with the ulterior intent to mislead the Government as well as this
Court. This factual position is amply borne out by the contemporaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
revenue records and stands further fortified by the averments contained in the
counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Collector, Palani, in W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of
2018, and in the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani, in W.A.(MD) No. 1573 of 2023. The relevant portions, as extracted
from the aforesaid counter affidavits and duly corroborated by the revenue
records, incontrovertibly establish the ineligibility of the petitioners and the
fraudulent nature of their claim, as delineated hereinbelow:-
“Relevant paragraphs of the Counter affidavit filed by the Sub-
Collector in W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018
5.I submit that out of 240.29 acres of surplus land in S.F.No.318
some extent of lands were assigned to 18 persons during 2003
vide TNLR
(DLS) Rules 1965. During 2004, 'B' notices were called for from
the eligible persons for assigning 126.60 acres. The writ
petitioners and some others were applied. 'D' notice for enquiry
were issued and all the persons were enquired as various dates,
during 2004 and 2005. 66 persons including the writ petitioners
were found eligible. Hence assignment orders were issued to
them in the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner (LR),
Madurai, in MR-IV / 196 / PLN / B2 dated 11.05.2005.
6) I submit that regarding the above assignment made during
the year 2005, TamilNaduVivasayigal Sangam had made some
complaints.
They complained that most of the persons for which the
assignment order was given during 2005 were not enjoying the
lands and that most of the lands are being enjoyed by landlords.
Hence they requested to retrieve the lands from the landlords
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
and handover them to the original assignees.
7) I submit that due to complaints from various corners, a team
of surveyors were allotted by District Administration and entire
surplus lands of Periyammapatti Village were surveyed. Hence
further process after the issue of assignment orders to the writ
petitioners Stagnated. There after no 'B' notice and *F' deed
were given to the writ petitioners.
Relevant paragraphs of Counter affidavit filed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palani in W.A.(MD) No.1573 of 2024
5. I respectfully submit that after the issuance of Assignment
Order
on 11.05.2005. The TamilnaduVivasayigal Sangam had filed
some Complaints on 17.07.2005 through Telegram stating that
the Assignment. Orders issued in favour of the 66 Assignees
including the Respondents/ 1 to 10 Writ Petitioners were
deceived the Government and obtainedAssignment grant Order
on 11.05.2005. Further the above saidVivasayigal Sangam
Requested to cancel the Assignment Order made in
favour of Land lords and reissue the Assignment Orders afresh
to the
Genuine land less poor families.
6. I respectfully submit that there were lot of complaints
alsoreceived from various corners. Hence the subsequent
Procedures of
issuing 'E' Notices to remit the land value for the lands to be
hand over after the execution of 'F' deed agreement were all
withheld. The Respondents/1 to 10 writ petitioners were not
given land to their possession in S.No.318 of Periyammapatty
Village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
7.I respectfully submit that in order to know the Genuineness of
the Assignees a team of survey staffs were deployed and
ascertained that the said Assignees are not hold any land in
S.No.318. Most of the Assignees were kept the lands barren and
sold out the lands to rich peoples. Hence the Assignment orders
issued on 25.09.1983, 29.08.2003, 17.04.2004, and 11.05.2005
were cancelled on 31.08.2012 in MR4/196/Palani/Aa2.The
Respondents/ I to 10 Writ Petitioners had not filed any appeal
before the Appellate forum but filed the Writ Petition before the
Hon'ble Court
after taking sufficient time to prepare the fake and fabricated
records to deceive the Government.
8. I respectfully submit that out of the 99 Assignments granted in
S.No. 318 and cancelled, the Respondents/1 to 10 Writ
Petitioners alone filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble
Court after 6 years with fake and fabricated documents.
65.Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is pertinent to record that
none of the writ petitioners, at any point of time, assailed the cancellation of
assignments made in Roc.No.MRIV/196/PLN/B2, dated 31.08.2012, by
invoking the statutory appellate remedy before the District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul, as expressly mandated under the relevant provisions of the Land
Reforms Act, and the Rules framed thereunder.
66. Notwithstanding the availability of such statutory remedy, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
petitioners remained silent and permitted the cancellation of their assignment
orders, vide Roc. No. MRIV/196/PLN/B2, dated 31.08.2012, to attain finality in
law. It was only after an inordinate lapse of nearly six years from the date of the
aforesaid orders that the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to assail the
patta issued to the 5th respondent, G.D. Narendra, under Patta No. 1965, in
respect of S.F. No. 318/1J1B, measuring an extent of 21.19 acres - a property
wholly unconnected with the surplus lands assigned to them. This was done
without furnishing any plausible or satisfactory explanation either for the gross
delay or for their omission to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy.
67. It is brought to the attention of this Court that the materials on the
revenue record further reveal that the 1 to 10 writ petitioners, with malafide
intent, have produced manipulated documents by altering the revenue records to
create a false impression that Patta No.1965, issued for S.F.No.318/1J1B to an
extent of 21.19 acres, pertained to their holdings The petitioners 1 to 10 in W.P.
(MD) No. 23475 of 2018 have committed fraud upon this Court by producing
fabricated and manipulated documents, including land value challans and kist
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
receipts originally issued in the names of other persons, which were altered to
reflect their own names. This is clearly evidenced from the documents enclosed
in the typed set of papers, pages 42 to 49 (land value challans), pages 50 to 58
(sub-division payment challans), and pages 59 to 85 (kist receipts). Notably, the
challans at pages 71 and 72 were altered and submitted along with the
impugned writ petition to wrongly impress upon this Court that the lands
assigned to them pertained to the said survey number, and that the patta
allegedly issued to them had been arbitrarily cancelled by the authority on
31.08.2012. This is further substantiated by the contents of the counter
affidavits filed by the revenue officials in W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018 and
W.A.(MD) No.1573 of 2024, which are extracted below:-
The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the
Sub-Collector, Palani in W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018 are as
follows:-
8)I submit that the writ petitioners enclosed some documents
in their typed set from page No. 1 to 44 with regard to the
land cost paid, sub divisional cost paid, land tax receipts are
all not genuine. Since no'E' notice was given to the writ
petitioners, no land value after the issue of assignment orders
was fixed. Hence no land cost has been collected from the
writ petitioners. So the extracts of chalans for the cost paid
towards land value are not genuine. These are all bogus
challans.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
9) I submit that since no land cost was fixed on the lands, no
orders were given for subdividing the lands for which
assignment orders was given to the writ petitioners. Hence
there is no need to collect sub division fees from the writ
petitioners. Hence the extracts of challans for the cost paid
towards subdivision are all not genuine. They are all bogus
receipts.
10) I submit that since no 'F'Deed was made to the writ
petitioners there is no necessity to collect land revenue for the
lands for which assignment orders were given to writ
petitioners. Hence the extracts of land tax receipts are all
bogus.
The relevant paragraphs of the Counter affidavit filed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani in W.A.(MD) No.1573 of
2018 are as follows:-
20 (a)No 'F' Pattas were issued to the writ petitioners. As per
TNLR (DSL) Rules 1965, after issuing notices in form 'B' for
calling applications from the public for the assignment of
surplus lands, the applications applied in 'C' form will be
enquired by a authorized officer serving a notice in form D to
all applicants. The eligible persons will be identified as per
norms, then an order called assignment order will be issued
to them. There after land value will be fixed. Then a notice in
form 'E' for the payment of value of the land will be issued to
the persons for whom assignment orders were given. After
paying the value, 'F' deed will be made to them. "F' deed is
only theauthenticated documents for holding surplus
lands.There aftersubdivisions will be made and changes in
revenue records will be muted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
20(b)The extracts of chalans paid towards land cost enclosed
in typed set of papers in page no 1 to 8 annexed to the
affidavit are not genuine.They are all bogus.
20(c) The extracts of chalans for the cost paid towards sub
division enclosed in the typed set of documents for page no.9
to 17 annexed to the affidavit are not genuine. They are all
bogus.
20(d) The extracts of receipts for the amount paid towards
land revenue enclosed in the typed set of documents from
page no. 18 to 44 annexed to the affidavit are not genuine.
They are all bogus.”
68.This is further corroborated by subsequent proceedings, pursuant to
the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 in W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of 2018,
wherein the Revenue Divisional Officials issued notice in Na.Ka.No.
3021/2019/A5 dated 21.11.2023 (page 226 of the consolidated typed set of
papers), fixing personal hearing on 07.12.2023 at 11:00 a.m., and calling upon
the 1 to 10 writ petitioners to produce the assignment order, land payment kist
receipts, E-Notices and F-Patta as per their statements made in the said affidavit
filed in support of the said impugned writ petition.
69. In response, the 1 to 10 writ petitioners submitted letters dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
21.11.2023 (pages 229 and 230 of the consolidated typed set) stating that, in
Periyammapatti Village, S.FNo.318, the Assistant Commissioner had issued an
assignment order in MRIV/196/Palani/A2 dated 11.05.2005. They further stated
that thereafter, no E-notice had been issued to them, and as they had not paid
the land tax, no F-patta had been issued. They admitted that the documents and
receipts filed along with W.P.(MD) No. 23475 of 2018 against G.D. Narendra
were not available with them. Yet claimed to have been in enjoyment of S.F.No.
318/1J for the past thirty years, and requested the issuance of patta.
70. The statements made before the revenue authorities are wholly
inconsistent with the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of
W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018, as well as with the manipulated revenue
documents produced along with the typed set of papers in that writ petition in
an attempt to support their case.
71.Upon a comprehensive analysis of the materials on record and the
submissions advanced, this Court unhesitatingly holds that there exists no
nexus, direct or remote, between the surplus lands allotted to the writ petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
and the excluded or retainable lands of the appellants herein in S.F.No.
318/1J1B, admeasuring 21.19 acres and covered under Patta No.1965, which
was granted under Section 3(22) of the Land Reforms Act.
72.This conclusion stands firmly supported and conclusively
corroborated by the categorical statements contained in the separate counter
affidavits filed by the Sub-Collector, Palani, in W.P.(MD) Nos.23474 and
23475 of 2018, which emanate from the revenue records, and is further
unequivocally affirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, in his
separate counter affidavits filed in W.A.(MD) Nos.1572 and 1573 of 2024. The
relevant paragraphs from the said counter affidavits filed in W.A.(MD) Nos.
1572 and 1573 of 2024 are extracted hereunder.
“Relevant paragraphs of Counter affidavit filed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani in W.A.(MD) No.1572 of
2023 are as follows:-
18.I respectfully submit that in obedience to the District
Revenue Officer, Dindigul dated 02.07.2012 issued in
proceedings Na.Ka. No. 41330/2009/Aa4 the land was
inspected and the area not fit for cultivation was found in the
Field No. 318 of PeriyammapattyVillage. The area left out as
not fit for cultivation to an extent of 21.19 acres was given
new Notation and allotted as 318/1J1B. The undeclared Land
alone was granted Patta infavour of the Appellant'shusband
name under holding No.1965 of Periyammapatti Village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
19. I respectfully submit that the Lands assigned infavour of
the
Respondents / Writ Petitioner I to 5 and consequently
cancelled for the reason stated in above said Supra 11 are
situated in the Southern - West of the field in S. No. 318/1J2,
318/1J5, 1J10, 1J7, and 1J2. The Respondent / Writ
Petitioner 1 to 5 were wrongly presumed that the Assigned
Lands were transferred to infavour of the Appellant's
Husband name and filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No.
23474 of 2018.
20. I respectfully submit that the area to an extent of 21.19
acres
situated in S.No. 318/1J1B is lies faraway from the Land
Assigned to the Respondents/Writ Petitioner 1 To 5 and
situated in the Northern East Corner. Hence the
Respondents/Writ Petitioner has no right 10 question for the
grant of Patta infavour of the Land owner
G.D.Narendra……..”
Relevant paragraphs of Counter affidavit filed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palani in W.A.(MD) No.1573 of 2023 are
as follows:-
16. I respectfully submit that the Lands assigned infavour of
the Respondents / Writ Petitioner 1 to 10 and consequently
cancelled for the reason stated in above said Supra 7 to 9 are
situated in the Southern - side of the filed in S.No.318. The
Respondent / Writ Petitioner 1 to 10 were wrongly presumed
that the surplus Lands held in S.No.318/1A1 and 318/2 were
transferred to infavour of the Appellant's Husband name and
filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 23475 of 2018.
19. I respectfully submit that in obedience to the order of
District Revenue Officer, Dindigul dated 02.07.2012 issued in
proceedings Na.Ka.No. 41330/2009/Aa4 was inspected and
the area not fit for cultivation was found in the Field No. 318
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
of Periyammapatty Village.The area left out as not fit for
cultivation and covered Under Section3(22) to an extent of
21.19 acres situated at the norther side of the field in S.No.
318 was subdivided new Notation has bean given as
318/1J1Band reconveyed to the lant owner The undeclared
Land alone was granted Patta infavour of the Appellant's
husband name under holding No. 1965 of Periyammapatti
Village, in pursuance of the revised order issued by the 12 th
Respondent on 30.07.2018 in Na.Ka.No.41330/2009/D6.
21. I respectfully submit that the area to an extent of 21.19
acres
are covered Under Section 3(22) of the Act is situated on the
northernside in S.No.318/1J1B and not held in the surplus
Lands lies in thesubject Property. Hence the
Respondents/Writ Petitioner I to 10 have no right to question
for the grant of Patta infavour of the Land owner
G.D.Narendra by the 14thRespondent and claim to issue
reassignment order in the Lands granted Patta in S.No.
318/1JIB in favour of the deceased G.D.
Narendra……..”
73.Thus, the revenue inspection pursuant to the DRO’s order dated
02.07.2012 revealed that 21.19 acres in S.F.No.318, Periyammapatti Village,
were unfit for cultivation, reclassified as S.F.No.318/1J1B, and granted patta to
the appellant’s husband G.D.Narendra, under Patta No.1965. The lands
assigned to the writ petitioners 1 to 5, later cancelled, are located in different
sub-divisions in the southwest portion of S.F.No.318, whereas S.F.No.318/1J1B
lies in the northeast corner, far from their holdings. The 1 to 5 writ petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
mistakenly presumed that their assigned lands had been transferred to the
appellant’s husband and filed W.P.(MD) No.23474 of 2018.
74.On an identical footing, the lands assigned to the writ petitioners 1 to
10, later cancelled, are located on the southern side of S.F.No.318. They
wrongly presumed that surplus lands in S.F.Nos.318/1A1 and 318/2 had been
transferred to the appellant’s husband and filed W.P.(MD) No.23475 of 2018.
Pursuant to the DRO’s order dated 02.07.2012, inspection revealed 21.19 acres
in S.F.No.318, Periyammapatti Village, unfit for cultivation and covered under
Section 3(22) of the Act. This portion, situated in the northern side and
reclassified as S.F.No.318/1J1B, was reconveyed to the original landowner and
patta granted to the appellant’s husband under Patta No.1965 as per the revised
order dated 30.07.2018. Since S.F.No.318/1J1B does not form part of the
surplus lands, the writ petitioners have no right to question the grant of patta or
seek reassignment.
75.Accordingly, this Court finds, upon a careful examination of the
revenue records and inspection reports, that the lands covered under S.F.No.
318/1J1B, measuring 21.19 acres and granted patta to the appellant’s husband-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
G.D.Narendra under Patta No.1965, lie in the extreme northern portion of
S.F.No.318, whereas the lands originally assigned to the writ petitioners, and
subsequently cancelled, are situated in entirely different sub-divisions in the
southern and south-western portions of the same survey number. The physical
positioning of these parcels is such that they run parallel to each other, lying in
parallel demarcations, with no contiguity, overlap, or interconnection, either
geographically or in title. Consequently, they cannot, by any legal or factual
inference, be treated as one and the same property. In the considered view of
this Court, the writ petitioners’ assumption that their erstwhile assigned lands
had been conveyed to the appellant’s husband- G.D.Narendra is patently
erroneous, devoid of factual substratum, and contrary to the contemporaneous
revenue records.
76. After carefully going through the records, this Court finds that the
writ Court misunderstood the actual facts, even though the true position was
clearly shown in the revenue records and confirmed in the separate counter
affidavits filed by the Revenue Department. The impugned order dealing with
the so-called retention lands has no proper basis and is doubtful in its reasoning,
while the cancellation orders were issued without proper application of mind
and in breach of the principles of natural justice is nothing but legally untenable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
and devoid of justification. The direction given by the writ Court to reopen the
matter and initiate fresh proceedings is erroneous and unsupported by the
documentary evidence on record. In these circumstances, the impugned order
dated 23.06.2022 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 23474 and 23475 of 2018 is set aside, and
the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
77. Insofar as the subsequent purchaser, the appellant in W.A. (MD) Nos.
695 and 1117 of 2024, is concerned, it stands established that the said appellant
acquired the subject property under a duly registered sale deed, Document No.
2288/2018, dated 27.08.2018, on the file of the Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Palani,
executed by G.D. Narendra, the fifth respondent in the impugned writ petition,
and through a subsequent purchase from the legal heir of G.D. Narendra under
Document No. 3202/2020, dated 11.11.2020, on the file of the Joint-II Sub-
Registrar, Palani, for valid and lawful consideration. By virtue of the said
transactions, the appellant has acquired absolute and bona fide title to the
property in question. The respondents herein, in the above writ appeals, are,
therefore, restrained from in any manner interfering with the appellant’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
78.In view of the foregoing findings and the facts and circumstances of
the case, these Writ Appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned order dated
23.06.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) Nos. 23474 and 23475 of 2018 is set aside.
No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[J.N.B.J.] [S.S.Y.J.]
01.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Netural Citation: Yes/No
nvsri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
To
1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DINDIGUL.
2.THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICE,
DINDIGUL.
3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND (REFORMS).
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
4.THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE,
PALANI DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
nvsri
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT
IN
W.A(MD) Nos.1117 and 695 of 2024,
1572 and 1573 of 2023
01.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:44 pm )
