(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 1st respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. K2/5695582/2023 dated 22.11.2023 and quash the same consequentially direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in Survey Number 54/2 which was an extent of 1 acre and 1 cent situated in Melaveli Kaspa Thottam Village Melaveli Vattam Thanjavur Taluk Thanjavur District and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 1st respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. K2/5695582/2023 dated 22.11.2023 and quash the same consequentially direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in Survey Number 54/2 which was an extent of 1 acre and 1 cent situated in Melaveli Kaspa Thottam Village Melaveli Vattam Thanjavur Taluk Thanjavur District and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.)

Common Order:

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2023, issued by the first respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the lands comprised in Survey Nos.54/2 and 54 originally belonged to one K.T. Balasubramania Iyer, as reflected in the revenue records. Subsequently, the said lands vested with the Government under Act 26 of 1948. Thereafter, pursuant to the settlement proceedings, patta was granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor. The petitioner's vendor had acquired title through his father and subsequently, the petitioner purchased the subject property from his vendor under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1976 for valuable sale consideration. From the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property as a Ryotwari Punja land.

3. The learned counsel would further submit that, despite the above, the revenue records have continuously reflected the subject land as “Anadheenam” land. Therefore, seeking deletion of the said entry and inclusion of the petitioner's name in the revenue records, the petitioner had submitted repeated representations to the District Revenue Officer from the year 2013 onwards and thereafter approached the Commissioner of Land Administration. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner approached this Court. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Commissioner of Land Administration, after obtaining a report from the District Revenue Officer, passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that, admittedly, as per the Resurvey and Settlement Register maintained by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, the name of the petitioner's vendor's father is reflected in the relevant revenue records. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner's vendor was also reflected in the revenue records and on the strength of the said records, the petitioner purchased the subject property in the year 1976. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner's vendor had not made a separate application under Act 26 of 1948 for grant of Ryotwari patta, particularly when the patta granted during the settlement proceedings is already reflected in the Settlement Register.

5. The learned counsel would submit that the said aspect has not been properly considered by the Commissioner of Land Administration while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and appropriate orders may be passed in favour of the petitioners.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the land comprised in Survey No.54/2, measuring an extent of 2.94 acres, originally belonged to K.T. Balasubramania Iyer, as reflected in the relevant revenue records. Subsequently, the entire estate was taken over and the estate lands vested with the Government under Act 26 of 1948. After such vesting, any person claiming Ryotwari patta was required to submit an appropriate claim in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules within the prescribed period.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that no such claim was made by the petitioner's vendor within the prescribed period. Thereafter, during the settlement proceedings, the subject land was recorded as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:02:11 pm ) “Anadheenam” land, as no person had established a claim for Ryotwari patta before the Settlement Officer in terms of Act 26 of 1948. Once the land had vested with the Government and no claim for Ryotwari patta was made within the prescribed period, the petitioner cannot, at this belated stage, seek alteration of the revenue records and claim Ryotwari patta. He would further submit that the Government had subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, 29.06.1987, granting a final opportunity for persons claiming Ryotwari patta to submit their claims and the last date prescribed therefor was 20.08.1987. Even thereafter, no claim was made by the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now seek deletion of the “Anadheenam” entry and incorporation of his name in the revenue records.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the issue relating to belated claims for Ryotwari patta under Act 26 of 1948 has already been considered by this Court in the decision in W.A.No.729 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025. In view of the said legal position, the claim made by the petitioner at this belated stage is not legally sustainable. Hence, he would submit that the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The principal grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the entry of the subject land as “Anadheenam” in the revenue records and their claim for recognition of their alleged right over the subject property on the basis of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948). It is not in dispute that the subject lands formed part of an estate which stood vested with the Government pursuant to the notification under Act 26 of 1948. The statutory scheme contemplated determination of entitlement to Ryotwari patta by the competent Settlement Authorities. The respondents have specifically contended that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors-ininterest had made any claim within the prescribed period and that, during the settlement proceedings, the subject land was accordingly recorded as “Anadheenam” land. It is also the specific case of the respondents that, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987, a final opportunity was granted to the persons concerned to make their claims and the last date for making such claim was 20.08.1987. Admittedly, no such claim was made by the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest within the said period. Though the petitioners rely upon the revenue entries and the alleged grant of patta in favour of their vendor, the said aspect involves appreciation of the relevant settlement records and determination of the nature and extent of the rights claimed by the petitioners. The Commissioner of Land Administration, after obtaining a report from the District Revenue Officer, has considered the claim and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 22.11.2023.

11. This Court, in the decision in Kiliammal & Ors. – Vs – State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (W.P. No.14418/03, etc. Batch – dated 29.4.2022) has held that the Government is the reason for the situation in which it has to face very many challenges on the judicial side on account of grant/non-grant of patta, more especially, ryotwari patta and in that context held as under :-

                   “115. The reason for the said situation is the act of the Government in not taking prompt steps in repealing enactments, which have exhausted its life and are no longer a requirement to be maintained. The Ryotwari enactments, both minor and major inams is one such law, which is still being held, though the said enactment has outlived its life. Due to the recalcitrant attitude of the Government in not repealing such enactments, not only corruption is allowed to flourish, but the same paves the way for land grabbing as well, which is a very big menace in the society. It is high time that the Government takes prompt action to repeal such enactments, which are no longer required to be maintained so that many illegal acts can nipped in the bud. Not only the action to repeal the enactments would suffice, but equally the revenue officials, who did not have any jurisdiction to grant patta in respect of ryotwari lands have been responsible for the said act of granting patta in respect of ryotwari lands and, therefore, this Court feels that the Government should conduct an enquiry in order to fix the responsibility on the person, who has been instrumental in doing such nefarious acts and take appropriate action against such of those persons, which alone would restore the faith of the public in the functioning of the Governmental machinery.”

12. Therefore, the statutory scheme under the said enactment can no longer be invoked for entertaining a fresh claim for grant of Ryotwari patta. The repeal of the enactment also makes it clear that the issue of seeking a fresh adjudication under the said repealed enactment does not survive for consideration. The earlier statutory opportunity granted to the persons concerned to establish their entitlement, including the final opportunity pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987, having already expired, the petitioners cannot seek to reopen the same at this length of time.

13. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no ground has been made out for interfering with the impugned order dated 22.11.2023. Accordingly, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.

14. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.