High Court · 2025

W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.A.No. 2433 of 2025andC.M.P.No.18655 of 2025V.Rani...AppellantVs.1.A.Kumar2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 3.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.4.Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Cuddalore – 607 001.5.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk Office, Cuddalore – 607 001. ...Respondents 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.25800 of 2023 dated 26.02.2024. For Appellant : Mr.S.P.YuvarajFor Respondents: R1 – Not ready in notice. Mrs.Akila Rajendran, Government Advocate for R2 to R5 ******J U D G M E N T(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted by the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the District Collector / appellate Authority. 2. The facts in nut shell reveals that the 1st respondent purchased a land to an extent of 29 cents and he is cultivating the same. The appellant is a neighbour and doing agricultural activities. A dispute arose between the appellant and the 1st respondent, which resulted in filing a complaint by the 1st respondent against the appellant that she is in occupation of the water body based on the assignment patta granted, contrary to the revenue records. Based on the complaint given by the 1st respondent herein, the Authorities conducted 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------an enquiry. The revenue records are verified and they found that the assignment patta was granted in favour of the appellant mainly on the ground that the subject property has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. However, the Authorities have recorded that originally the said property was classified as “oodai”. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority came to be challenged in the writ proceedings by the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the assignment patta was granted long back in favour of the appellant. They are in possession continuously and cultivating the land. The 1st respondent due to personal enmity lodged a complaint against the appellant for cancellation of the assignment patta. The Authorities have rightly concluded that the subject land has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. Therefore, the writ order is to be set aside. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents would oppose by stating that the land was originally classified as “oodai”, which is a channel for carrying water. Therefore, it cannot be assigned nor be encroached upon by any person. Subsequently, the process of re-survey scheme was undertaken. Thereafter, the subject land was classified as “tharisu” 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------in village “A” register, and the land was sub-divided and assignment patta was issued in favour of 5 persons including the appellant. The said finding was given by the Authorities based on the files maintained by the Village Administrative Officer and as per the village records. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would also oppose that the land has been originally classified as “oodai poramboke” which is a water body and after re-survey scheme, the records of the Village Administrative Officer was manipulated. Therefore, the assignment patta granted is illegal.6. In this context, the learned Single Judge considered the facts and not satisfied with the pleadings, directed the official respondents to produce the original records including the “A” register/ Settlement Register/ Inam Register, prior to UDR and subsequent to the UDR, change of classification, issuance of patta, the present classification / Adangal Register and with all relevant original files along with the FMB. The writ Court has verified the entire revenue records and formed an opinion that the assigned land was classified as “oodai”, which is a channel for carrying water and therefore, it cannot be assigned nor be encroached upon. The learned Single Judge made an observation that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued assignment patta in favour of the appellant. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------On a verification of the original records the learned Single Judge found that the revenue records were tampered with and further directed the chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against the officials, who have involved in manipulation of revenue records. 7. This Court is of the considered view that manipulation of revenue records is an offence and the Authorities involved are to be prosecuted and subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings. 8. In the present case, the writ Court examined the original records in entirety and found that the subject property was originally classified as “oodai” and after re-survey scheme it was stated as “punjai tharisu”. Along with the appellant assignment patta had been granted in favour of 5 other persons in the same property. Therefore it is needless to state that all those assignment pattas granted in water bodies are to be cancelled for the purpose of preserving the water body as per the original scheme and for the benefit of the people residing in that locality and for drinking and irrigation purposes. While initiating action against other persons, the Authorities competent are bound to follow the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and Rules in force. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025---------------------------- 9. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the writ Court has verified the original revenue records and formed an opinion that the subject property has been originally classified as “oodai”, which is a water body. Therefore, the writ appellant is not entitled to any relief from the hands of this Court. Pertinently the appellant is not able to establish any order of re-classification issued by the Government or by the Commissioner of Land Administration. Revenue Divisional Officer or Tahsildar are incompetent to re-classify the lands and therefore, the findings made in the order impugned, which was under challenge in the Writ Petition is perverse. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.) 04.09.2025dsaIndex:Yes/NoNeutral Citation :Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking order6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------To:1.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.3.Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Cuddalore – 607 001.4.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk Office, Cuddalore – 607 001. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.andC.SARAVANAN, J.dsaW.A.No. 2433 of 202504.09.20258/8

W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.A.No. 2433 of 2025andC.M.P.No.18655 of 2025V.Rani...AppellantVs.1.A.Kumar2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 3.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.4.Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Cuddalore – 607 001.5.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk Office, Cuddalore – 607 001. ...Respondents 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.25800 of 2023 dated 26.02.2024. For Appellant : Mr.S.P.YuvarajFor Respondents: R1 – Not ready in notice. Mrs.Akila Rajendran, Government Advocate for R2 to R5 ******J U D G M E N T(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted by the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the District Collector / appellate Authority. 2. The facts in nut shell reveals that the 1st respondent purchased a land to an extent of 29 cents and he is cultivating the same. The appellant is a neighbour and doing agricultural activities. A dispute arose between the appellant and the 1st respondent, which resulted in filing a complaint by the 1st respondent against the appellant that she is in occupation of the water body based on the assignment patta granted, contrary to the revenue records. Based on the complaint given by the 1st respondent herein, the Authorities conducted 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------an enquiry. The revenue records are verified and they found that the assignment patta was granted in favour of the appellant mainly on the ground that the subject property has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. However, the Authorities have recorded that originally the said property was classified as “oodai”. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority came to be challenged in the writ proceedings by the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the assignment patta was granted long back in favour of the appellant. They are in possession continuously and cultivating the land. The 1st respondent due to personal enmity lodged a complaint against the appellant for cancellation of the assignment patta. The Authorities have rightly concluded that the subject land has been classified as “punjai tharisu”. Therefore, the writ order is to be set aside. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents would oppose by stating that the land was originally classified as “oodai”, which is a channel for carrying water. Therefore, it cannot be assigned nor be encroached upon by any person. Subsequently, the process of re-survey scheme was undertaken. Thereafter, the subject land was classified as “tharisu” 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------in village “A” register, and the land was sub-divided and assignment patta was issued in favour of 5 persons including the appellant. The said finding was given by the Authorities based on the files maintained by the Village Administrative Officer and as per the village records. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would also oppose that the land has been originally classified as “oodai poramboke” which is a water body and after re-survey scheme, the records of the Village Administrative Officer was manipulated. Therefore, the assignment patta granted is illegal.6. In this context, the learned Single Judge considered the facts and not satisfied with the pleadings, directed the official respondents to produce the original records including the “A” register/ Settlement Register/ Inam Register, prior to UDR and subsequent to the UDR, change of classification, issuance of patta, the present classification / Adangal Register and with all relevant original files along with the FMB. The writ Court has verified the entire revenue records and formed an opinion that the assigned land was classified as “oodai”, which is a channel for carrying water and therefore, it cannot be assigned nor be encroached upon. The learned Single Judge made an observation that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued assignment patta in favour of the appellant. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------On a verification of the original records the learned Single Judge found that the revenue records were tampered with and further directed the chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against the officials, who have involved in manipulation of revenue records. 7. This Court is of the considered view that manipulation of revenue records is an offence and the Authorities involved are to be prosecuted and subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings. 8. In the present case, the writ Court examined the original records in entirety and found that the subject property was originally classified as “oodai” and after re-survey scheme it was stated as “punjai tharisu”. Along with the appellant assignment patta had been granted in favour of 5 other persons in the same property. Therefore it is needless to state that all those assignment pattas granted in water bodies are to be cancelled for the purpose of preserving the water body as per the original scheme and for the benefit of the people residing in that locality and for drinking and irrigation purposes. While initiating action against other persons, the Authorities competent are bound to follow the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and Rules in force. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025---------------------------- 9. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the writ Court has verified the original revenue records and formed an opinion that the subject property has been originally classified as “oodai”, which is a water body. Therefore, the writ appellant is not entitled to any relief from the hands of this Court. Pertinently the appellant is not able to establish any order of re-classification issued by the Government or by the Commissioner of Land Administration. Revenue Divisional Officer or Tahsildar are incompetent to re-classify the lands and therefore, the findings made in the order impugned, which was under challenge in the Writ Petition is perverse. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.) 04.09.2025dsaIndex:Yes/NoNeutral Citation :Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking order6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------To:1.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001. 2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 001.3.Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Cuddalore – 607 001.4.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk Office, Cuddalore – 607 001. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2433 of 2025----------------------------S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.andC.SARAVANAN, J.dsaW.A.No. 2433 of 202504.09.20258/8