The court reaffirmed that to obtain patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, continuous possession must be proven, and unsubstantiated claims based on fraudulent documentation are untenable.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 08.03.2022 made in W.P.No.26301 of 2009.

2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration along with his subordinate Revenue Authorities have preferred this intra-Court appeal mainly on the ground that the writ order setting aside the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration dated 26.04.2005 is contrary to law and facts.

3. The facts in nutshell would show that the Kasapuram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District was an Inam Village and was taken over by the Government under Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26/63). During settlement, the lands in S.No.11/1 was treated as Government Dry Anadeenam by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu and this was not objected and remained unchanged until it was re-classified by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet subsequent to the application filed by the respondents in the year 1994. The application was filed on 28.07.1994 by the respondent Mr.M.Mumoorthy under G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue dated 30.04.1971. It is not in dispute that the patta has been sought for by the respondent outside the scope of the Abolition Act on the ground that the Government Order provides for submission of such application for grant of patta.

4. Based on the application, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet Division granted patta vide proceedings in D.Dis.373/93 dated 28.07.1994. The Revenue Divisional Officer made a finding that “the land is originally classified as “Dry” and subsequently classified as “Anadeenam” and the land is under possession and enjoyment of the applicant’s father and the applicant continuously even prior to settlement and after the settlement. In the light of G.O.Ms.No.1300 of Revenue dated 30.04.1971 ryotwari patta can be granted to the applicant. In the circumstances, patta is granted to Thiru.Mumoorthy, Kaspapuram for an extent of 1.21.5 hectare or 3.00 acres of land in S.No.11/1 of Kaspapuram Village, Saidapet Taluk changing the classification from “Anadeenam” to “Dry”. The Tahsildar, Saidapet is requested to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk accounts and issue patta to the applicant and report, compliance.”

5. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr.D.Selvaraju, learned counsel assisted by Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 made a submission that patta has been granted outside the scope of Tamil Nadu Act, 26/1963 and based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.04.1971. Thus, patta is in consonance with the Government policy and the writ Court also considered the said factors and granted the relief by setting aside the order of Commissioner of Land Administration.

6. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the application was originally submitted by the father of the respondent late Manicka Devar dated 17.01.1974 and after his death a fresh application was submitted in the year 1994 by the respondents. Thus there is no infirmity as such and the order of the writ Court is to be confirmed.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General would oppose by stating that based on the fraudulent documents the respondents are claiming rights. The order granting patta was not issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet under Section 15 of the Act 26 of 1963, wherein, the appeal lies before the Tribunal.

8. In the present case, the order was passed based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No