S.M. Subramaniam J.

1. Under assail is the writ order dated 13.09.2018 passed in  W.P.No. 30148 of 2018.

2. The 6th respondent in the present writ appeal preferred the writ  petition in W.P.No.30148 of 2018 seeking a direction to the official  respondents to restore the petitioner’s possession status quo ante in and over  the house constructed in 2 cents bearing Natham S.No.407/1, Sujalnatham  Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, covered under the HSD  Patta No.2171/90 dated 24.08.1981 besides payment of compensation of  Rs.50 Lakhs for the mischief committed by the respondents for violation of his  right to life, shelter and livelihood, which were infringed on 18.05.2018 by  considering his representation dated 16.07.2018. The writ Court passed an  order granting the relief as sought for by the writ petitioner and further directed  the official respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner  towards costs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the  subject land is classified as Government promboke and the 6th respondent  Mr.G.Ramaraj has been identified as an encroacher. Enforcement actions  were initiated and the Government lands were resumed. After resumption, the  writ petition came to be filed seeking to restore the possession status quo  ante. The writ Court has not considered the fact that the 6th respondent is an  encroacher and the documents produced by him to establish his ownership  are bogus documents.

4. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would oppose by stating that  the subject land is a natham land and an assignment was granted in favour of  the 6th respondent. Based on the assignment, patta was granted and thus, the  6th respondent cannot be construed as an encroacher. The writ Court  considered all these aspects and granted the relief. No show cause notice  was issued before evicting the 6th respondent and for all these reasons, the  writ petition came to be allowed.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would mainly contend  that the subject lands are classified as Government promboke and no  assignment was granted in favour of the 6th respondent. The patta produced  by the 6th respondent is a bogus document. Therefore, the writ Court has  granted the relief without considering these ground raised by the State  authorities.

6. In view of the said submission, this Court vide order dated  29.01.2026 directed the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to conduct an enquiry  and  ascertain whether the patta produced by the 6th respondent/writ petitioner  is a genuine document.

7. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the  District Collector,  Dharmapuri, has commenced an enquiry  through letter dated 07.02.2026.  Notice was issued to all the parties and an enquiry was conducted by the  District Collector by affording  opportunity to all the parties. Revenue  documents were produced by the concerned authorities. The District Collector  elaborately conducted an enquiry and the enquiry report filed by the District  Collector before this Court would show that the patta produced by the 6th  respondent/writ petitioner is a bogus document. The relevant findings of the  District Collector in his enquiry report are extracted hereunder.

                  6. I respectfully submit that the Photocopy of the alleged  patta was scrutinized in par with the all of the revenue records  available with the  Revenue and the Highways department and  the enquiry findings are as follows: A. The subject matter of the entire Facio revolves around Survey  No.407 of the Sunjalnatham Revenue Village in the Eriyur  Revenue Firka of the Pennagaram Taluk in the Dharmapuri  District (herein after referred to as "the Subject lands”).

                  B. The Subject Lands before the implementation of the UDR  Scheme was classified in whole as "Re Survey No. 407 - Old  Survey No. 48- Government Poramboke - Kerihalli Village  Site" having a total extent of a 3 Acres 42 Cents

                  C. The Subject Lands after the implementation UDR Scheme  1979 to 1989 for the Dharmapurt District in the year 1983 87, was sub divided into Survey No. 407/1A, 407/1B and  407/2 and the same is as follows : Re  Survey  No. UDR New  Survey No. Extent Classification 407 407/1A 0.05.0 Hectare or  12.35 Cents Government  Poramboke –  Penangaram to  Nagamarai  Nilaviyal Asphalt  Road 407 407/1B 1.33.0 Hectare or 3  Acres 29 cents Government  Poramboke – Eriyr  Grama Natham 407 407/2 0.00.5 Hectare or  1.25 Cents  Government  Poramboke –  drinking water well

                  (Classification of the Survey No. 407 during UDR scheme)

                  D. I submit that the Natham Settlement scheme was implemented in  the year 1991, for the first time the free house site Patta’s were  issued in the Subject Lands in the Survey No. 407/1B classified as  “Government Poramboke – Eriyur Gramanatham” and 149  beneficiaries were issued patta to that effect in Survey No. 407/1B  alone.

                  E. I submit that there was never a sub division in the Survey No. 407  into 407/1 during any of the above schemes. I submit that on  careful scrutiny of the alleged patta submitted by the Respondent  No. 6 herein, the alleged patta is given in respect of the Survey  No. 407/1 to the extent of 0.02.0 Hectare or 4 Cents in the year  1981 which corresponds to none of the survey numbers existing in  the revenue and highways records.

                  F. I submit that it is highly pertinent to know that that during any  of the revenue schemes, there exists no Survey No. 407/1 either  in the revenue nor in the highways department records. As such  no Tahsildhar can issue patta in respect of a nonexistent lands,  which corresponds to the issue on hand.

                  G. I further submit that on further careful perusal of the alleged  patta submitted by the Respondent No. 6, the alleged patta  does not bear any of the file numbers or the proceedings  number and government seal which are mandatory while  issuing the free house site patta.

                  H. I further submit that submit that it is highly pertinent to note  that free house site patta was issued in the Subject Lands only  from the year 1991 during the Natham settlement scheme but  the Respondent No. 6 posses the alleged patta of the year 1981  in respect of Survey No.407/1, even before the implementation  of the UDR scheme, which is impossible as the Subject Lands  were sub divided for the first time only in the year 1983.

                  7. I respectfully submit that in the year 2002 to 2003, the  Highways Department with the aid of the Revenue Officials surveyed  the Survey No. 407/1A and found several encroachments in it. I  submit that the Respondent No. 6 Mr. Ramaraj, as he was in  possession of a bogus patta for the undivided Survey No. 407/1  which is non existent, he was removed from the government lands  after following the due process of law.

                  8. I respectfully submit that that the Survey No. 407 was sub  divided into 407/1A, 407 /1B and 407/2 only in the years between  __________ 1983 to 87. I further submit that after the sub division, the Survey  No.407/ 1B was classified as“Eriyur Grama Natham” and patta _to  the private individuals were issued only in the year 1991 during the  Natham Settlement Scheme, till such time no patta was issued in the  entire Survey No. 407.

                  9. I respectfully on perusal of the patta in the hands of the  Petitioner, there exists no Revenue or registration documents in the  entire district of Dharmapuri and Salem (before district  bifurcation), to prove the onus of the Patta lying in the hands of the  Respondent No. 6 herein. Therefore, it is presumed that the so  called patta possessed by the Respondent No. 6, is bogus and there  are no revenue records to prove the same.

8. The detailed enquiry conducted by the District Collector reflected in  his report would reveal that the petitioner, by producing   bogus patta made an  attempt  to squat upon the Government land and the grounds raised in this  regard by the appellant as well as the State was not considered by the Writ  Court.

9. Since an independent enquiry was ordered by this Court in order to  ascertain the correct facts and the District Collector also complied with the  order of this Court by conducting an enquiry and submitted a report, it would  be sufficient to form an opinion that the 6th respondent/writ petitioner has not  established any semblance of legal right to resume the subject land which is  classified as “Government promboke”.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ order  impugned dated 13.09.2022  in W.P.No.30148 of 2018 is set aside and the  Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected  miscellaneous petition is closed.