WP/21965/2025 of DR.R.CHANDRASEKARAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 30 September 2026

Common Order

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, seeking to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the patta in the names of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in W.P. No. 21965 of 2025, the petitioner, Dr. R. Chandrasekaran, is the ultimate purchaser of the subject properties situated in S.F. Nos. 124/A11, 124/A12, 124/A13, and 124/A14, for which patta was duly issued vide Patta No. 775. The said patta was subsequently cancelled on the ground that the subject property comprised assigned lands meant for members of the Harijan community.

3. Tracing the title of the property, the learned counsel submitted that:

• On 15.05.1995, one Theliappan, son of Perumal, sold an extent of 0.41.5 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A13 to one Kaasi, following which the patta was mutated in the name of Kaasi vide Patta No. 71.

• On 27.08.1996, one Munusamy sold an extent of 0.32.0 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A12 to one Arumugam, and the patta was mutated accordingly.

• On 21.06.2000, one Oothukaatan sold an extent of 0.35.0 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A11 to the said Kaasi, and the patta was mutated in the name of Kaasi under Patta No. 71.

• On 18.03.2002, the legal heirs of one Sellan, son of Muniyan, sold an extent of 0.38.5 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A14 to the said Arumugam. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the subject properties in S.F. Nos. 124/A11 and 124/A13 from Kaasi on 14.09.2009. On the very same day, the petitioner also purchased the properties in S.F. Nos. 124/A12 and 124/A14 from Arumugam. Following these transactions, the patta was mutated in favour of the petitioner and issued as Patta No. 775.

4. However, on 23.09.2024, the patta standing in the name of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3rd respondent via the impugned order, on the ground that the subject properties were sold by the original assignees in violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. In respect of W.P. No. 22380 of 2025, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is the legal heir of one Lakshmanan. The said Lakshmanan had purchased the property in S.F. No. 124/A9 from one Chellapan on 19.04.1999, and on the same day, purchased an extent of 0.33.0 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A10 from one Kishtan. Later, on 04.10.2002, the petitioner’s father, Lakshmanan, purchased another extent of 0.27.5 hectares in S.F. No. 124/A8.

6. Upon the demise of Lakshmanan, the said properties devolved upon his legal heirs, including the petitioner. Subsequently, the other legal heirs executed a Release Deed in favour of the petitioner, based on which the patta was mutated. Under these circumstances, the 3rd respondent, by the same impugned order dated 23.09.2024, cancelled the petitioner's patta on identical grounds, alleging a violation of the assignment conditions.

7. The learned counsel further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the D-Form (D-Namuna) assignment, the subject lands could be sold to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes after the expiry of 10 years, subject to obtaining prior permission from the appropriate authority. He argued that once an assignment is cancelled for a violation of its conditions, the land must resume to the Government as 'Sarkar Punjai' (Government Dry Land) and becomes available for fresh allotment or utilization as the Government deems fit.

8. In the present case, the subject lands were sold by the respective original allottees as far back as 1995 and 1996, and pattas were mutated based on continuous possession. Thereafter, the petitioners acquired the properties, and Patta Nos. 775 and 488 were duly issued in their names. It is argued that once the property is sold in violation of the assignment conditions, it automatically loses its character as assigned land. Therefore, without considering these legal aspects and the long-standing possession of the parties over Punjai Tharisu (Dry Wasteland), the 3rd respondent erroneously passed the impugned order.

9. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, along with the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, strongly opposed the submissions made by the petitioners.

10. They contended that since the subject lands were originally assigned to members of the depressed class with an explicit non-alienation condition for a period of 10 years, any subsequent alienation, even after the expiry of the said 10 years, is permissible only in favour of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, it is submitted that the original assignees patently violated the terms and conditions of the assignment, which results in the automatic cancellation of the assignment.

11. It was further argued that once an assignment is cancelled, the land becomes available exclusively for re-allotment to members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and cannot be transferred to any other person. Therefore, the respondents strongly opposed the contentions of the petitioners and submitted that the impugned order cancelling the pattas standing in the names of the petitioners is perfectly in accordance with law. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of these Writ Petitions.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

13. The assignment was originally made to 14 beneficiaries by virtue of an order dated 31.01.1985, subject to a non-alienation condition restricting any sale of the properties within a period of 10 years, and a further condition permitting the assignees to alienate the properties after a period of 10 years exclusively to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST), subject to prior permission from the revenue authorities. A perusal of the proceedings of the Sub-Collector dated 29.06.1984, the subsequent proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 26.06.1984, and the ultimate assignment order dated 31.01.1985 reveals that the subject lands were originally occupied by these 14 persons, and the land was classified as 'Meikkal Poramboke'

(grazing ground poramboke). Since these 14 persons were in occupation of the land, they applied for the issuance of patta and sub-division. Upon their request, the authorities decided to reclassify the status of the land from 'Meikkal Poramboke' to 'Tharisu' (wasteland). Following such reclassification, the assignment was granted to the 14 individuals via orders dated 26.06.1984 and 31.01.1985, and pattas were issued in S.F. Nos. 124/A1 to 124/A14.

14. According to the petitioners, not all of the 14 original assignees belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, as individuals from other communities were also included. However, a perusal of the underlying record indicates that all the 14 allottees belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. As on date, while the land is classified in the revenue records as 'Sarkar Poramboke' (Government Poramboke), portions of these lands were sold by some of the original allottees to third parties during the years 1995, 1996, 2000, and 2002. Eventually, the pattas were mutated in the names of these subsequent purchasers, from whom the petitioners ultimately acquired the properties. Consequently, the pattas were mutated in the names of the petitioners vide Patta Nos. 775 and 448.

15. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the subject properties were sold by the original assignees to the purchasers in the years 1995, 1996, 2000, and 2002, and that these transfers were made in favour of persons who do not

belong to the Scheduled Caste community. This constitutes a patent violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment order dated 31.01.1985. Now, the core question that falls for consideration is: once the terms and conditions of an assignment are violated, and the land is described as 'Sarkar Punjai', how must it revert to the Government, and what would be the legal character of the land upon such violation?

16. Initially, the land was 'Meikkal Poramboke', which was subsequently converted into 'Punjai Tharisu' (dry wasteland) and assigned to members of the Scheduled Caste community subject to a strict non-alienation clause. In the event of a violation of such conditions, the land must revert to the Government in terms of Revenue Standing Order (RSO 15(41)(4)(iii)), which provides as follows: ‘’Power to re-enter in case of violation of conditions : If the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or (after the ten years) other members of their class, owing to sale by process of law or otherwise, or, if default is made in the payment of the Government revenue on the dates prescribed the grant will be liable to be resumed by the Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without payment of any compensation or refund of the purchase money.’’

17. A perusal of the aforementioned RSO clarifies that in the event of any violation of the terms and conditions governing an allotment made to Scheduled Caste persons, the land shall be resumed by the Government, and the state shall be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the same, free from all encumbrances.

18. In the present case, although the land was allotted to Scheduled Caste persons with a restrictive covenant against alienation to non-SC/ST individuals, that condition was admittedly breached. The original assignment itself was granted based on a formal request to the authorities who converted the Meikkal Poramboke into Tharisu land before issuing the D-Form (D-Namuna) certificates.

19. Once the condition was violated, the Government was duty-bound to resume and re-enter the land in terms of RSO 15(4)(1)(4)(iii). However, the Government failed to take any such steps. It is a settled position that once an assignment is terminated or frustrated by the unilateral acts of the assignees, the land loses its character as 'assigned land' and reverts to its baseline status as Government Tharisu land, making it available for fresh allotment or public distribution in a manner known to law. This is not Panchami land, which by statutory mandate must strictly be re-allotted only to members of the Scheduled Castes upon resumption. This land was originally Meikkal Poramboke, later reclassified as Tharisu, and then assigned to SC individuals. Once the conditions of that conditional assignment are breached, the land loses its character as assigned land and reverts to normal, unencumbered Tharisu land, which is free for general distribution.

20. In the case at hand, no steps were ever taken by the state machinery to resume the land. On the contrary, acting upon the registered sale deeds, even if technically invalid due to the regulatory breach, and recognizing the uninterrupted physical possession of the parties, the revenue authorities issued pattas treating the land as Tharisu land. Once the land assumes the character of ordinary Tharisu land, it becomes available for regular revenue assessment and patta mutations. Even if the underlying sale deeds are held to be invalid, the petitioners remain in settled possession of Tharisu land, and based on such long-standing possession, the revenue authorities duly mutated the pattas in favour of the subsequent purchasers and, eventually, the petitioners.

21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authority passed the impugned order under the erroneous presumption that these lands retain a character as assigned lands meant for the SC community, which must be strictly resumed and reserved exclusively for the depressed classes. Such an approach is legally unsustainable. While it is undoubtedly the intention of the Government to distribute land to the Scheduled Castes under relevant welfare legislations to protect and uplift suppressed communities, the legal consequence of a breached assignment in this specific context is different. This Court arrives at the conclusion that once the conditions of this specific assignment were violated, the land lost its restricted character as assigned land, reverted to its status as ordinary Tharisu land, and became fully available for general distribution, state use, or retention by the Government for its own purposes.

22. Such being the case, the impugned order has been passed mechanically and without a proper application of mind. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The original pattas issued in the names of the petitioners vide Patta Nos. 448 and 775 are hereby restored. The revenue authorities are directed to update the relevant revenue records and registries accordingly within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, WMP.Nos.25189 and 24720/2025 are ordered and WMP.Nos.24721 and 25190 of 2025 are closed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To

1. The District Collector Chengalpattu Collector Office, Chengalpattu District.

2. The District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu , Chengalpattu District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.

4. The Tahsildar Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 21965 of 2025 AND WMP NO. 24720 OF 2025,WMP NO. 24721 OF 2025,WP NO. 22380 OF 2025,WMP NO. 25189 OF 2025,WMP NO. 25190 OF 2025,WMP NO. 56043 OF 2025 30-09-2026