WP(MD)/9466/2025 of K.Indrani Vs The District Collector on 5 October 2026

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the second respondent, cancelling the pattas given to the petitioners on 26.02.2019 vide Patta Nos.805 and 806, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land measuring an extent of 3.65 cents in S.No.910/18 was classified as __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 'village natham' and originally belonged to one Thiruvengada Ramanujam Naidu and others. Under the registered sale deed in the year 2000, the land had been purchased by the first petitioner and similarly, the land in S.No.910/19 was also purchased on 29.08.2000. The petitioners have requested for grant of patta, but however patta had been issued as an assignment patta for which the respondents had no authority in respect of 'natham lands'. In the interregnum, respondents 4 to 6 had filed an application for assignment, which was not considered and hence, they moved this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9579, 9580 and 9581 of 2023, which came to be dismissed. However, by conducting an enquiry, the second respondent had cancelled the patta given in favour of the petitioners and the same is now being impugned in this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lands being classified as 'natham lands', the second respondent do not have any authority firstly to issue assignment patta and consequently, to cancel the assignment patta at the behest of some third parties. He would submit that the lands have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioners based on the sale deeds that have been executed in favour of the petitioners and in view of the long possession, they are also entitled for grant of patta. Hence, he seeks this Court to set aside the __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 order of cancellation passed in the impugned order and direct issuance of patta for 'natham lands' in favour of the petitioners.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the lands were never classified as 'natham lands' and were only classified as 'natham ryotwari manai' and in that regard, the claim of the petitioners is wholly untenable. He would submit that the petitioners are owning lands and they are not entitled for any free house site pattas and in that regard, he would submit that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the authority which requires interference by this Court.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the lands have been classified only as 'punjai nilam' and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the lands are 'natham lands' is wholly misconceived in which free house site patta had been issued in favour of the petitioners, which on verification was found that the petitioners were not eligible for grant of free house site patta and on that ground, the same had been cancelled. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material available on record.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the lands in question were originally owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and they have also been granted patta. After the purchase by the petitioners on an application made by them for grant of patta, assignment pattas had been issued as free house site. When the lands are already patta lands issued in favour of the petitioners' predecessor in interest, in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer as capitulated in the impugned order, it is not known as to how a free house site patta had been issued in favour of the petitioners.

8. In that regard, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were entitled to regular patta on their purchase, which originally stood in the name of the predecessors in interest by way of transfer and not by way of issuance of fresh patta, particularly as an assignment granted in their favour. Respondents 4 to 6, who had made an application for assignment of free house site, are entitled for grant of patta, if they are otherwise eligible and their request could be considered by respondents 1 to 3 of the lands belonging to the Government and not belonging to the private __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 party. The attempt made by the second respondent on assigning the patta lands purchased by the petitioners without process of land acquisition proceedings would violate the constitutional right of the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue patta by way of transfer of the patta which stood in the name of the predecessors in interest in respect of lands covered under the document of sale in favour of the petitioners. Respondents 1 to 3 are also directed to consider the claim of respondents 4 to 6 for grant of free house site patta in accordance with their eligibility. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ABR __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 To

1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar Revenue Division, Virudhunagar.

3. The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar. __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )

WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr WP(MD) No. 9466 of 2025 05-10-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 06:01:16 pm )