Madras High Court
V.Rani vs A.Kumar on 4 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.2433 of 2025
----------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No. 2433 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.18655 of 2025
V.Rani ...Appellant
Vs.
1.A.Kumar
2.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.
4.Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Office,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
5.The Tahsildar,
Cuddalore Taluk Office,
Cuddalore – 607 001. ...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
W.A.No.2433 of 2025
----------------------------
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.25800 of
2023 dated 26.02.2024.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj
For Respondents : R1 – Not ready in notice.
Mrs.Akila Rajendran,
Government Advocate for R2 to R5
******
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted by the 5th respondent
in the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the
order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the District Collector / appellate Authority.
2. The facts in nut shell reveals that the 1st respondent purchased a land
to an extent of 29 cents and he is cultivating the same. The appellant is a
neighbour and doing agricultural activities. A dispute arose between the
appellant and the 1st respondent, which resulted in filing a complaint by the 1st
respondent against the appellant that she is in occupation of the water body
based on the assignment patta granted, contrary to the revenue records. Based
on the complaint given by the 1st respondent herein, the Authorities conducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
an enquiry. The revenue records are verified and they found that the
assignment patta was granted in favour of the appellant mainly on the ground
that the subject property has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. However, the
Authorities have recorded that originally the said property was classified as
“oodai”. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority came to be challenged in
the writ proceedings by the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the
assignment patta was granted long back in favour of the appellant. They are in
possession continuously and cultivating the land. The 1 st respondent due to
personal enmity lodged a complaint against the appellant for cancellation of the
assignment patta. The Authorities have rightly concluded that the subject land
has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. Therefore, the writ order is to be set
aside.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official
respondents would oppose by stating that the land was originally classified as
“oodai”, which is a channel for carrying water. Therefore, it cannot be assigned
nor be encroached upon by any person. Subsequently, the process of re-survey
scheme was undertaken. Thereafter, the subject land was classified as “tharisu”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
in village “A” register, and the land was sub-divided and assignment patta was
issued in favour of 5 persons including the appellant. The said finding was
given by the Authorities based on the files maintained by the Village
Administrative Officer and as per the village records.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would also oppose that
the land has been originally classified as “oodai poramboke” which is a water
body and after re-survey scheme, the records of the Village Administrative
Officer was manipulated. Therefore, the assignment patta granted is illegal.
6. In this context, the learned Single Judge considered the facts and not
satisfied with the pleadings, directed the official respondents to produce the
original records including the “A” register/ Settlement Register/ Inam Register,
prior to UDR and subsequent to the UDR, change of classification, issuance of
patta, the present classification / Adangal Register and with all relevant original
files along with the FMB. The writ Court has verified the entire revenue
records and formed an opinion that the assigned land was classified as “oodai”,
which is a channel for carrying water and therefore, it cannot be assigned nor
be encroached upon. The learned Single Judge made an observation that the
Revenue Divisional Officer issued assignment patta in favour of the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
On a verification of the original records the learned Single Judge found that the
revenue records were tampered with and further directed the chief Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against the
officials, who have involved in manipulation of revenue records.
7. This Court is of the considered view that manipulation of revenue
records is an offence and the Authorities involved are to be prosecuted and
subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings.
8. In the present case, the writ Court examined the original records in
entirety and found that the subject property was originally classified as “oodai”
and after re-survey scheme it was stated as “punjai tharisu”. Along with the
appellant assignment patta had been granted in favour of 5 other persons in the
same property. Therefore it is needless to state that all those assignment pattas
granted in water bodies are to be cancelled for the purpose of preserving the
water body as per the original scheme and for the benefit of the people residing
in that locality and for drinking and irrigation purposes. While initiating action
against other persons, the Authorities competent are bound to follow the
procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and Rules in force.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
9. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the writ Court has verified
the original revenue records and formed an opinion that the subject property
has been originally classified as “oodai”, which is a water body. Therefore, the
writ appellant is not entitled to any relief from the hands of this Court.
Pertinently the appellant is not able to establish any order of re-classification
issued by the Government or by the Commissioner of Land Administration.
Revenue Divisional Officer or Tahsildar are incompetent to re-classify the lands
and therefore, the findings made in the order impugned, which was under
challenge in the Writ Petition is perverse.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
04.09.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
To:
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o. District Revenue Officer,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.
3.Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Office,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
4.The Tahsildar,
Cuddalore Taluk Office,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
----------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:19:18 pm )
