IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.09.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.897 of 2019 and WMP.No.1009 & 11372 of 2019 K.S.Anandan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur

2.The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District

3.S.B.Gandhi (third respondent impleaded as per order dated 03.09.2025 made in WMP.No.23596 of 2019 in WP.No.897 of 2019) ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.28881/2017/A3 dated

29.11.2018 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.S.Udhayakumar

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.11.2018 thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking deletion of classification ‘manavari Anadhinam’ in respect of the subject property comprised in survey No.130/7 to an extent of 1.5 acres situated at Periyakaavanam Village, Tiruvallur District.

2. For the land comprised in survey No.130/7 to an extent of

1.5 acres situated at Periyakaavanam Village, Tiruvallur District, ryotwari patta was granted on condition to conduct thanner pandal in favour of one, Jayaram Mudaliar under patta No.95 under the Tamilnadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). After his demise, the said property was inherited by his legal heirs Krishnamoorthy, Gunasekaran and Narayanasamy. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased from the legal heirs of the deceased Jayaram Mudaliyar by the sale deed dated 24.11.1999 registered vide document No.3781 of 1999. However, during the UDR proceedings, subsequently the land was classified as ‘manavari anadhinam. Therefore, the petitioner approached the second respondent by way of representation dated 15.12.2017 to grant revenue patta in his favour after changing the classification. The second respondent conducted enquiry and submitted report before the first respondent and also recommended to reclassify the subject land and for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. It was not considered by the first respondent and as such the petitioner filed writ petition before this court in WP.No.32193 of 2018 and this Court by order dated 06.12.2018 directed the first respondent to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the recommendation forwarded by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with the law after giving opportunity of hearing. Accordingly the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner and conducted enquiry. During the enquiry, the petitioner handed over all the records pertaining to the subject land. However, order has been passed thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was called for enquiry and he submitted all the documents, without conducting any enquiry, the first respondent passed order. Therefore it is clear violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, under the Act, the first respondent is not a competent person to pass any order. After detailed enquiry, the second respondent by its communication dated 10.09.2018 recommended the case of the petitioner and submitted report for re-clasification of land and also for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. However, without even considering the report submitted by the second respondent, the first respondent mechanically rejected the request made by the petitioner.

4. The first respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner is not at all entitled for any patta since even according to the petitioner, petitioner’s ven