A party may seek correction of revenue records without being barred by limitations if proper grounds for correction exist based on previous ownership and classification errors.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Revenue Officer/1st respondent herein negativing the request made by the petitioner for correction of the revenue records, inclusion of his name and for issue of patta, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, the property comprised in Survey No.31/2 measuring to an extent of 3.42 acres situated in Sembarambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District belongs to his family. It is stated that originally it was owned by one Kamalambal with Patta No.614 issued in her name. The A-Register of the year 1978 also disclose that the property was classified as 'Ryotwari Punja'. The said Kamalambal executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 01.08.1978 vide Document No.1491/1978 in favour of her grand daughter-Prathibarani Ammal. The said Prathibarani Ammal sold the subject property in favour of T.P.Jeyarani, W/o.Porroran, mother of the petitioner under registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1983 in Document No.2604 of 1983. After purchase, patta was issued in the name of T.P.Jeyarani and her name was also included in Adangal Extract for the fasli year 1392 equivalent to 1982. The mother of the petitioner died on 20.07.2008 leaving behind the petitioner and his brother- Gowri Shankar as her legal representatives. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired knowledge that the subject property was wrongly classified as 'Government Poramboke/Anadheenam' in the revenue records, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or other heirs of T.P.Jeyarani.

3. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents herein dated 20.09.2023 seeking restoration of Patta in the name of his mother. Since no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.30090 of 2023 before this Court to consider his representation dated 20.09.2023. This Court by order dated 17.10.2023 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2023 by conducting enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the above said order, the 1st respondent has conducted enquiry and called for report from the 3rd respondent. He inturn called the report from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer, Thirumazhisai. Both of them filed reports stating that the subject property was wrongly classified as 'Government Land/Anadheenam. It was also clearly mentioned in the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer that earlier revenue records stood in the name of petitioner's mother- T.P.Jeyarani. Based on the report of Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector, the 3rd respondent inturn submitted a report dated 23.01.2024 to the 1st respondent mentioning that the revenue records for the subject property originally stood in the name of mother of the petitioner T.P.Jeyarani of the fasli year 1382 and lateron, it was wrongly classified as Government Land/Anadheenam. However, the 1st respondent overlooking the report submitted by 3rd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the request of the petitioner for issue of patta was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that earlier patta for the subject property stood in the name of mother of the petitioner and it was wrongly classified as Government Land/Anadheenam. Therefore, the petitioner seeks restoration of the patta in the name of his mother or her legal representatives. The request of the petitioner was refused by the 1st respondent on the assumption, the petition for issue of Ryotwari Patta was made under Act 26 of 1948 and following the guidelines issued by Commissioner of Land Reforms, the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st respondent misunderstood the request of the petitioner for grant