Order :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Gowthamaraj, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.M.Subash, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following prayer:-

i) To quash the 1st Respondent’s proceedings dated 04.09.2024 pertaining to cancellation of Patta of Petitioners’ property morefully described in the prayer of this Writ Petition and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to restore the petitioners’ name in Patta No.1069.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased the subject property from one Munusamy vide registered Sale Deeds both dated 22.02.2001; that since the fourth respondent attempted to disturb the petitioners’ peaceful possession of the property, both the petitioners filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.272 of 2001 and A.S.No.34 of 2008 and obtained judgment and decrees dated 05.09.2003 and 24.03.2010 in their favour; that after the said decrees, patta was also transferred in the joint names of the petitioners under Natham Land Register on 31.07.2013; that later one Palanisamy has filed a Petition to cancel the patta granted in the names of the petitioners, however, the third respondent after conducting enquiry rejected the said Petition; that subsequently, based on a complaint given by the fourth respondent, the second respondent issued summon to the petitioners calling for an enquiry towards cancellation of patta; that though the petitioners filed their reply, the second respondent without considering the same, passed an order dated 01.06.2022 for cancellation of patta; that aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first respondent, however, the first respondent also passed an order dated 04.09.2024 for cancellation of patta granted in the names of the petitioners; challenging the said order dated 04.09.2024, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the Official Respondents, viz., respondents 1 to 3 would submit that on verification of the revenue records, it is found that the subject land is a Government Poromboke Land, meant for the purpose of putting up a Ambedkar Reading Room/Library for the use of the general public, but the said Munusamy (who is the son of Maran) utilized the said Government Poramboke Land measuring an extent of 0.08 cents, alleging that, it was assigned to his father Maran (deceased) and sold the same in favour of the petitioners on 22.02.2001; that, since there is no provision to issue house site with an extent of 0.08 cents, the claim of Munusamy for the ownership of the Government Poramboke Land is absolutely wrong; that unless and until, relaxation of the conditions framed on the assigned conditionally, the land belongs to the Government, and the petitioners cannot claim right over the same, and taking into consideration of the aforesaid aspects, the first respondent passed the impugned order and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioners and the same requires no interference.

5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The first petitioner purchased the property measuring to an extent of 5 cents out of 8 cents from one Munusamy for a valuable consideration and the remaining 3 cents out of 8 cents was purchased by the second petitioner herein and both the Sale Deeds were registered vide Document Nos.345 & 346 of 2001 dated 22.02.2001. Since the fourth respondent, G.Shanmugam along with public raised objection for putting up of any construction in the subject land by the petitioners and also attempted to disturb the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the first petitioner f