[21th respondent is impleaded vide order of this Court dated 09.03.2026]

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to retrieving the petitioner's family panchamar lands of bearing Survey No.2189/1, situated at Vadaveeranayakkanpatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District by cancelling the sale deeds of Doc.No. 1586/1956 dated 03.08.1956, Doc.No. 2599/1956 dated 24.11.1956, Doc.No. 2388/1974 dated 18.07.1974, Doc.No.96/1977 dated 01.02.1977, Doc.No. 148/1978 dated 31.01.1978, Doc.No. 513/1984 dated 13.02.1984, Doc.No. 2947/1996 dated 09.09.1996 and Doc.No. 5318/1999 dated 29.09.1999 respectively registered at the 4th respondent Sub-Registrar Office by the Respondents 5 to 20 and consequently issue Patta in the petitioner's family name.

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to retrieve the petitioner’s family Panchamar land, which was registered in the office of the 4th Respondent (Sub- Registrar) by Respondents 5 to 20, and consequently to issue patta in the name of the petitioner’s family.

Despite issuance of notice, some notices were served, and the names of certain respondents were printed. Respondents 5 and 20 have died. Some notices were returned with endorsements such as “no such address,” “refused,” “unknown,” and “unclaimed.” However, Respondents 19 and 21 were represented by their counsel. One R. Siva filed an impleading petition in W.M.P. (MD) No. 9473 of 2024, which was allowed.

The contention of the petitioner is that his father was allotted the Panchamar land through proceedings dated 30.06.1925 and that the family has since been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further contended that Respondents 5 to 20, despite being aware that the land is Panchamar land, executed sale deeds in the office of the 4th Respondent and illegally alienated the property. The petitioner took several steps to retrieve the land by sending representations to the first respondent and to the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Scheduled Tribes Commission. The last such representation was sent on 21.06.2023. However, no action has been taken, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for Respondents 19 and 21 submitted that the land does not fall within the purview of Panchamar land. It was further submitted that a civil suit in O.S. No. 106 of 2022 has been filed for declaration and injunction, and the same has been transferred, based on jurisdiction, to the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, where it is pending. It was submitted that when a dispute regarding title is pending before a competent civil court, the petitioner ought to seek declaration and injunction therein. The question as to whether the land is Panchamar land is left open to be decided by the competent civil court.

As far as Survey No. 2189/1 is concerned, this Court perused the ‘A’ Register, which indicates that the land is Panchamar land allotted to members of the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by the petitioner’s grandfather in favour of Respondents 5 to 20 (except Respondent 19) are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the following sale deeds:

* Doc. No. 1586/1956 dated 03.08.1956

* Doc. No. 2599/1956 dated 24.11.1956

* Doc. No. 2388/1974 dated 18.07.1974

* Doc. No. 96/1977 dated 01.02.1977

* Doc. No. 148/1978 dated 31.01.1978

* Doc. No. 513/1984 dated 13.02.1984

* Doc. No. 2947/1996 dated 09.09.1996

* Doc. No. 5318/1999 dated 29.09.1999

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s father was assigned the land subject to the condition that he could enjoy the property but not alienate it. Since the petitioner’s grandfather violated this condition by selling the land, the property cannot be restored to the petitioner. Inst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document