BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.15056 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.11312 and 11313 of 2025 Easwari ... Petitioner .Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Sub Collector/Revenue Division Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Uruvatti 5.Karnan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to iissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis passed by the first respondent proceedings in Ni.Mu.Pi.No. 11/32847/2019, dated 10.1.2025 by confirming the order of the second respondent in Pa.Mu(P2) No.9589/2017, dated 2.11.2028 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently mutate the patta in Petitioner’s name in respect of agricultural nanja land situated in Old.S.No.159/1, New S.No.159/1B, in patta No.1443, K.Veppankulam Revenue Group, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For Respondents : M/s.K.Malathi 1 to 3 Addl.Govt. Pleader O R D E R The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 2.11.2018 cancelling the patta issued in the name of the Petitioner’s father, the fifth respondent herein and the Petitioner. 2.The dispute in this Writ Petition pertains to issuance of patta in respect of 33 cents of land in S.No.159/1.The patta for the entire property with an extent of 13.50 ares roughly 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equivalent to 33 cents originally stood in the name of the Petitioner’s father, the fifth respondent herein namely, Karnan. The fourth respondent herein filed an application for cancellation of patta issued in the name of fifth respondent. The second respondent, who conducted an enquiry, came to the conclusion that the entire extent in S.NO.159/1, K.Veppankulam Revenue Group, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District was orignally classified as ‘’Government Nanjai Tharisu’’. The same was assigned in favour of one Anbu Pillai, son of Thirukana Thevar.The patta issued in the name of the fifth respondent was sought to be cancelled by the fourth respondent on the ground that the original assignee owned larger extent of properties and hence, he did not fulfil the eligibility criterion as per the Revenue Standing Orders 15 for assignment of free land. It is further stated that the original assignee sold the property to the fifth respondent within three years without doing any cultivation of the said land. The second respondent, taking into consideration the violation of the assignment conditions, cancelled the patta issued in the name of the fifth respondent, who purchased the property through an unregistered sale deed from the original assignee Anbu Pillai. Aggrieved by the said order, the fifth respondent herein filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent also confirmed the patta canellation order on the ground that there 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was no document to support the fifth responent’s right over the subject property. 3.Even as per the case of the Petitioner’s father, the fifth respondent herein, he purchased the subject property from Anbu Pillai only through an unregistered sale deed. It is settled law that unregistered sale deed will not convey any title in an immovable property. In these circumstances, the patta transfer order passed in favour of fifth respondent was untenable in law and the same is not supported by any valid document. The respondents 1 and 2 rightly marshalled the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that patta transfer order passed in favour of fifth respondent was untenable in law. As a necessary consequence, subsequent patta transfer order in respect of a portion of subject property(three cents) in favour of Petitioner, who is claiming right under fifth respondent also automatically goes. Therefore the Petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent. 4.The learned counel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the father of the Petitioner namely, the fifth respondent settled three cents of land in the above said survey number in the name of the Petitioner and subseuently, patta was 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis also transferred in the name of the Petitioner and the impugned order has been passed without hearing the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that she has got independent right over the property. Admittedly, she is claiming right over a portion of the subject property under her father, the fifth respondent herein. The respondents 1 and 2 heard the fifth respondent and passed the impugned order. The predecessor of the Petitioner was heard and impugned order is passed. Hence submission of counsel for the Petitioner that there was violation of natural justice principles cannot be countenanced. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. 5.Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. It is open to the Petitioner to establish her right, if any, over the subject property before the competent Civil Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 03.06.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Sub Collector/Revenue Division Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. S.SOUNTHAR.,J. vsn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.15056 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.11280 and 11281 of 2025 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 03.06.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis