WP(MD)/3371/2017 of N.GUNASEKARAN Vs THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER on 8 October 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 30.12.2016 and to direct the first respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the claim of the petitioners for issuance of patta is based upon a settlement patta granted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 in respect of S.No.200/3. It is his further submission that the original ryotwari patta holder had sold the property to third parties and the petitioners have finally purchased the subject property. It is the further submission that when the petitioners’

vendor had approached the third respondent for transfer of patta, the third respondent finding that the amount to be paid by the original ryotwari patta holder had not been paid and therefore, had directed the petitioners’ vendor to make good the payment together with 5% interest, which came to be challenged by the fourth respondent, as being the Trustee of the fifth respondent. The said order came to be set aside by the second respondent in an appeal which was also confirmed by the first respondent.

4. He also submitted that the first respondent even though had given a finding that the revenue authorities do not have an authority or jurisdiction to refuse transfer of patta, which arises out of a settlement proceedings, the impugned order deserved to be set aide and the petitioners are also ready and willing to pay the amount, as determined by the Tahsildar, who is the authority under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act for fixing the market value of the property. Hence, he prays appropriate orders to be passed.

5. Countering his arguments, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent made his submissions, which is also supported by the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The leaned Counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that under the settlement proceedings, the petitioners’ vendor were only granted patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, which is the provision for grant of patta in favour of the

Temple, as the same is a service inam, as recorded in the order. Hence, there can be no transfer of patta in favour of the petitioners without challenge to the said proceedings. He also submitted that no document had been produced evidencing payment of value as directed in the settlement proceedings as early as in the year 1968 and that he submitted that there is no necessity for interfering with the order passed by the authority and it is always open to the petitioners to substantiate with the document/right before the competent civil Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. By a proceedings, dated 22.02.1968 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963, in respect of four survey numbers, particularly, S.Nos.200/3, 166/1, 200/2 and 200/1 part claims were made by the 5th respondent as well as private individual. Under the said proceedings in respect of S.No.200/3, a factual finding had been arrived at with regard to the sale of the land in favour of one Ellammal as early as in the year 1942 and further transaction have also been recorded therein. The authority had also recorded the willingness of the holder of the land to pay the consideration in consonance with Section 8(2)(ii)(b). However, in the concluding paragraph with regard to S.No.200/3, the authority had held that the holder is entitled to patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act on paying the consideration to the Government.

8. It is to be noted that for grant of patta under the said provision, no consideration is required to be paid. In that regard, the provision that had been quoted by the authority would only be the provision under Section 8(2)(ii)(b) of the Act under which, consideration is liable to be paid by the holder of the land on the date of passing of the order. However, the fourth or fifth respondents had not challenged the said proceedings for granting patta in respect of S.No.200/3 in favour of individual from whom the petitioners have derived title.

9. When an application for transfer for patta had been made, it is for the authority to decide the same on the strength of the claim made. Even though the Tahsildar is also the competent authority under the provision of the Act 1963, he could not have invoked the powers under the said Act while dealing with the application for regular transfer of patta. He ought to have initiated proceedings for recovery of the money under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and not otherwise, as done by him in the present proceedings. The same even though was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the perusal of the order of the first respondent would indicate that he had understood that the authority under the Revenue Recovery Act do not have jurisdiction to pass such order and in that regard, this Court find no infirmity in setting aside the order of Tahsildar. However, this Court is not inclined to give further direction to the petitioners to approach the civil Court for remedy their grievance in respect of the title to the property.

10. When a notification had been issued in respect of a village under the provisions of the Act, on and from the said date, the entire property in the said village is vest with the Government. The authority under the Act would conduct enquiry and pass order granting patta under the various provisions of the enactment. On the grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of the holder, any pre-existing right in favour of a third party, even if based on a registered document, stands extinguished.

11. In that regard, there is no necessity to drive the petitioners to seek claim based upon a ryotwari patta issued under the provisions of the Act. It is open to the authority to recover the unpaid amount of consideration as directed in the settlement proceedings of the year 1968 in the manner known to law. However, it will not preclude the petitioners from mutating the revenue records in their names.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition stands disposed of and the impugned orders are confirmed only in respect of the order of Tahsildar being interfered with with regard to the recovery of money. A direction is issued to the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of patta based upon the settlement proceedings dated 22.02.1968. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr To

1. The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Office, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

3. The Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. cmr W.P.(MD) No. 3371 of 2017 08-10-2026