BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD).No.6935 of 2026 Priyanga ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2. The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.3499934/2025/D3 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to cancel the Patta for the land in Survey No.414, classified as 'Vandi Paathai' .

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan For Respondents : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.3499934/2025/D3 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to cancel the Patta for the land in Survey No.414, classified as 'Vandi Paathai'.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in Survey No.38/2 situated at Balasamudram, Palani Taluk, Dindigul, a government land to an extent of 3.00 cents and have been possession of the same for the past 10 years and also constructed the house by Asbestos Sheet. Further, the petitioner seeks to grant patta. After consideration of the petitioner’s application, the first respondent concluded that the petitioner does not fall within the eligibility criteria. It was further noted that the petitioner is a partner in Yellow Kids Private School and owns a four-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 66 F 8272. Further, Survey No. 38/2 is classified as “Mandhai Poramboke,” which is reserved for common use by the villagers. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of patta.

3. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that certain other individuals in the village have also been granted patta, despite not falling within the eligibility criteria prescribed for landless poor persons. It was specifically contended that one such allottee’s husband is a Ward Councillor and that they are having properties, thereby rendering them ineligible.

5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. Considering the facts, this Court finds that no individual can claim patta over land classified as “Mandhai Poramboke,” as it is meant for common village use. Therefore, the challenge to that extent cannot be sustained. However, it is observed that Survey No. 414, which is classified as “Vandi Paathai” (public pathway), has not been adequately discussed in the impugned order.

7. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim with respect to Survey No. 414. If it is found that the existing patta holders do not satisfy the eligibility criteria, appropriate action shall be taken to cancel such pattas, after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

8. With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of . No costs.

13.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No msrm To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2. The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai S.SRIMATHY, J msrm Order made in

13.03.2026