Madras High Court
WA/3313/2026 of P.Lokesh Vs The Conservator of Forest on 26 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
W.A.No.3313 of 2026 and
CMP No.29339 of 2026
1. P.Lokesh
S/o P.Markandeyan,
11-31 Sundharamma Kandigai Village,
Thaadukkupet Post,
Nagari Tk, Chittoor District- 517590
2. P.Mohan,
S/o Munsasamy,
Sundharamma Kandigai Village,
Thaadukkupet Post,
Nagari Tk, Chittoor District- 517 590.
..Appellants
Vs
1. The Conservator of Forest
Chennai Region, Chennai- 600 006.
2. The District Collector
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Forest Ranger,
Tiruttani Region, Thiruvallur District.
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition in WP.No.35773 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.J.Jayamalan
For Respondent(s):
Mr. P.M.N. Bhagavath Krishnan, Learned
Additional Government Pleader – for R2
Ms. Jaya Shruthi, Learned Government Advocate for RR 1, 3 and 4
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 02.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.35773 of 2024. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court.
2. The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the appellants on 09.09.2024 and to issue Patta. The learned Single Judge made a finding that the subject land in question is a 'reserved forest land' and therefore Patta cannot be granted in favour of the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the subject land was the subject matter of W.P.No.7176 of 1982 and the learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 16.02.1990, thereby made an observation that the Forest Department have taken action to have the subject lands de-notified either as 'assessed dry waste' or 'reserved land'. Relying on the said order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.02.1990, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the proposal submitted by the Forest Department during that point of time is to be considered by the Government.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the writ order of the year 1990 is of no avail to the appellants since the subject land has not been de-notified so far and the same continues to be 'forest land' and therefore, the findings of the learned Writ Court that the property in question are 'reserved forest land' holds good and thus, the appeal is to be rejected.
5. This Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for in the writ petition is to consider the representation and to grant patta. Regarding grant of Patta, Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act enumerates that â the Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of
land owned by on and application made by his in this behalf." Therefore, ownership is to be established for grant of patta. 'Ownership' also has been defined under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act. Thus, to have Patta a person submitting an application necessarily has to establish ownership. In the present case, mere sending of proposal by Forest Officer in the year 1982 would not be a ground to claim Patta by the appellants. The forest land is admittedly not de-notified. The proposal would not confer any right on the occupants to seek Patta. Therefore, such occupations are to be treated as encroachments.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the encroachments in the subject forest land had already been removed and the Forest Department has taken possession of the entire forest land. Thus, issuance of Patta at this stage would not arise at all. Pertinently, the consideration of representation may not be considered by the High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the person filing the writ petition establishes his right or infringement of right. Establishing a right being a pre-condition to entertain a writ petition, the proposal submitted by the Forest Department in the year 2022 would not provide a cause of action for institution of the writ petition. Thus, the relief sought for in the writ petition by itself cannot be entertained. Pertinently, the forest land has been taken over by the department and encroachment has already been removed. When that being so, this Court is of the view that the writ order impugned has to be affirmed.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 02.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.35773 of 2024 is confirmed and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST To
1. The Conservator of Forest Chennai Region, Chennai- 600 006.
2. The District Collector Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
3. The District Forest Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Forest Ranger, Tiruttani Region, Thiruvallur District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. KST W.A.No.3313 of 2026 26-10-2026