The court held that reclassification of lands negates claims of violation of alienation conditions, and allegations of forgery cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

WP(MD)No.11031 of 2015 has been filed challenging the patta issued by the third respondent and for consequently directing the patta to be issued to the legal heirs of the original assignee.

2. W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3957/2016/A6 dated 20.08.2016 and to consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to handover the lands in survey No.39/2 to the petitioner and also issue fresh patta to the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.T.Thirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the writ petitions, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent 1 to 3 and Mr.H.Lakshmi Sankar, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 in both the writ petitions.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.11031 of 2015 is that her grand father, viz., Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari was the original assignee of lands which were specially assigned to the persons from the Scheduled Caste community. The said Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari had four daughters and a son, viz., Muthammal, Nagammal, Seeniammal, Vijaya being the daughters and Palanivel being his son. The writ petitioner is the daughter of the said Palanivel. According to the petitioner, her father being the only son, looked after the sisters. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent had assigned lands of an extent of 4.5 Acres to the grand father of the petitioner, namely, Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari, on 31.03.1969 and pursuant to the said assignment, her grand father has been cultivating the said lands. According to the petitioner, the subject lands were classified as Panchami Lands. Taking advantage of the petitioner's families illiteracy and poverty, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who was politically powerful, forged documents and registered the Panchami Lands in his favour, on 11.06.1996, through a registered sale deed in document No.300/1996. Based on the said sale deed, the fourth respondent was also issued patta No.319. On coming to know of the fraud played by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has sent representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 17.01.2014, seeking cancellation of patta issued to the fourth respondent and his wife.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order, without considering the standing orders of Board of Revenue and also the circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, which clearly prohibits alienation of lands allotted to the members of Scheduled Caste Community for a period of 10 years and that even thereafter it can be alienated only to persons belonging to depressed classes.

6. In W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016, the petitioner is son of Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari, who is the father of the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11031 of 2015. In this writ petition, the very same contentions that have been raised in the earlier writ petition by the petitioner's daughter have been reiterated, apart from additionally contending that the respondents 1 to 3 have colluded with the fourth respondent by issuing patta to him and his wife and that the petitioner has lodged a police complaint and the case was registered in Crime No.477 of 2015, dated 23.11.2015. The petitioner further states that the second respondent in and by the impugned order has been passed, without considering the classification of the lands as ”Panchami Lands” and without noticing a violation that have been complaint of.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the order passed by me in W.P.(MD)No.17900 of 2022 (P.Murugesan V. The State of Tamil Nadu) dated 07.02.2025, wherein, I have held on the facts of the said case that the validity of any transfer of panchami land can be gone into only by the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Land Administration and not by any other authority and