Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
C.Tamilselvan – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WMP NO. 18793, 18798 & 18795 OF 2021
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Guruprasad
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gowthamaraj, GA
Delayed enforcement of allotment conditions after decades and property sales renders patta denial invalid due to non-application of mind.
Headnote:The petition challenges an order denying patta issuance for land allotted in 1966 under conditions requiring house construction within six months, citing Article 226. Facts involve allotment to Ponnusamy, subsequent sales in 1991 and 2011, prior patta cancellation quashed by court in 2016, and appeals rejected for condition violation. Court finds unreasonable delay in enforcement after over three decades, rendering verification impossible, and non-application of mind by authorities. Issues framed around compliance with allotment condition and propriety of delayed rejection. Ratio holds that authorities must verify conditions promptly, not after decades, especially post-sales and lapsed time; rejection after 52 years unsustainable as original allottee sold property after 25 years, implying acquiescence. Impugned order set aside; directed issuance of patta within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of land allotment, sales, and patta application rejections. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's contention on delayed condition enforcement versus respondents' violation claim. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. unreasonable delay in verifying house construction condition after decades. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. impugned order set aside; patta issuance directed. (Para 11) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, on 19.03.1966, the subject property was assigned to and in favour of one Ponnusamy. Thereafter, the said Ponnuswamy had passed away and his wife had sold the subject property to and in favour of the petitioner’s vendor vide sale deed dated 13.01.1991. Subsequently, the said property was sold to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 27.06.2011. Under these circumstances, the petitioners made an application for issuance of patta in their name. However, the 3rd respondent had cancelled the patta vide order dated 22.03.2012.
3. Further, he would submit that the order dated 22.03.2012 was challenged by the petitioner in WP.No.27721 of 2012, wherein, vide order dated 11.11.2016, this Court quashed the said order and directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation for issuance of patta. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners had filed a representation before the 4th respondent. However, the said representation was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2017 on the ground that there was a violation of condition imposed vide the allotment order. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2017. Against the said dismissal order, another appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, however, the said appeal was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2018. Hence, this petition.
4. By referring the allotment order, he would contend that vide Clause 2 of the Allotment order dated 19.03.1966, a condition was imposed to the Allotee to construct a house in the subject land within a period of 6 months from the date of allotment. As on the date of impugned order, the aspect as to whether the said condition was complied with by the Allotee-Ponnusamy remained unknown. Without considering the same, after a lapse of more than 3 decades, the 2nd respondent has denied the issuance of patta to the petitioner by citing the reason of violation of condition, which is not sustainable in law. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in this case, there is a violation of condition as provided at Clause 2 of the Allotment order. In other words, the Allotee-Ponnusamy had failed to construct the house at the subject land within a period of 6 months from the date of allotment. Therefore, due to the said violation of condition, the allotment was cancelled by the respondents and accordingly, the representation made by the petitioner for issuance of patta was also rejected vide order dated 11.05.2018.
Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, upon perusal of allotment order dated 19.03.1966, it appears that initially, the subject land was allotted to and in favour of one Ponnusamy with a condition to construct a house in the said land within a period of 6 months from the allotment date. Thereafter, the said land was purchased by the petitioners’ vendor in the year 1991 and subsequently, it was purchased by the petitioners in the year 2011. Under these circumstances, the petitioners made an application for issuance of patta in their name. However, the said application was rejected by the official respondents by citing the reason t
