(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2026 passed in Ni.Mu.3832082/ 2025/ B1 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, confirming the impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2025 pa.Mu.1535/ 2025 B2 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant patta to the petitioner for the lands measuring 5479 sq.ft in Grama Natham S.F. No.345/35 (Old S.F. No.99) situate at Perur village, Coimbatore south Taluk and district within a stipulated period)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 06.05.2026, whereby the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 21.08.2025 were confirmed. Consequently, the Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to grant patta in respect of the subject land.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Grama Natham lands comprised in Old S.F. No. 99, measuring an extent of 8.36.00 hectares, originally belonged to the Perur Devasthanam. The Petitioner’s ancestors were employed by the said Devasthanam for nearly 120 years, during which period they constructed a residential house on the lands falling under New S.F. No. 346/1, and have also been in continuous possession of the lands in New S.F. No. 345/35.

3. While matters stood thus, one Joseph Nirmal Kumar fraudulently alienated an extent of 5,479 sq. ft. of land to the 4th Respondent via a registered Sale Deed dated 14.09.2011, and subsequently obtained a patta for the same. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd Respondent seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the 4th Respondent and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said representation, an enquiry was conducted, and a report dated 01.10.2024 was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent. In the said report, the 3rd Respondent explicitly affirmed that the Petitioner is in physical possession of the entire extent of land in S.F. No. 345/35.

4. However, the 2nd Respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.08.2025, declined to accede to the Petitioner’s request and relegated the parties to the Civil Court. Challenging the same, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1st Respondent, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 06.05.2026. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by Respondents 1 and 2, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 submits that the 1st Respondent rejected the revision on the ground that the Petitioner failed to file any objection within 15 days from the date of issuance of the patta, and further failed to prefer an statutory appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days.

6. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner’s family was in continuous possession and lacked legal literacy, they could not prefer the objections and appeals within the statutory timelines.

7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Though notice was duly served on the 4th Respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf either in person or through counsel. Hence, this Court proceeds to dispose of the matter on merits based on the available records.

9. It is evident from the records that the Petitioner’s family has been in possession of the subject Natham land for nearly a century. However, no patta has been issued to them till date. It is a well-settled principle that revenue authorities are under an obligation to conduct physical inspections to ascertain actual possession before issuing patta. In the instant case, the Petitioner has constructed a house and is residing therein. Although the learned Special Government Pleader contends that the subject land is a vacant house site, the revenue records and ancestral possession dating back to 1921 establish that the Petitioner, as a legal heir, is entitled to the issuance of a patta.

10. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent dated 06.05.2026 and the 2nd Respondent dated 21.08.2025 are hereby set aside.

11. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the Petitioner’s application, strictly taking into account the report of the 3rd Respondent dated 01.10.2024 which confirms the Petitioner's possession. The 2nd Respondent shall issue due notice to the 4th Respondent, afford a fair opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. No. 26532 of 2026 is closed.