T.M.A. LIAKATH ALIKHAN (DECEASED)1.NABISATH BEGAM vs THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

WA No. 1450 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 14-10-2026
Pronounced on : 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WA No. 1450 of 2024
and
CMP.Nos.10338 of 2024
& 10024 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA010861462024}
T.M.A. Liakath Alikhan (deceased)
1. Nabisath Begam,
No.6/27, Pedariyar Koil Lane,
Broadway, Chennai-600 001.
2. L.Mohamed Uzama,
No.6/27, Pedariyar Koil Lane,
Broadway, Chennai-600 001.
3. L.Sumaya Begam,
No.6/27, Pedariyar Koil Lane,
Broadway, Chennai-600 001.
Petitioners 1 to 3 are Substituted As legal heirs
of the deceased Writ Petitioner namely
T.M.A. Ligat Alikhan Vide Order dated
10.11.2023 in WMP No. 32055 of 2023
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The State Government Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary,
Land Acquisition Department,
Saint George Fort,
Chennai-600 005.
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of
Revenue Administration and Commissioner of
Land Administratation,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4. The Tahsildar,
Ilaiyankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set
aside the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in WP No. 12414 of 2014 and pass
such further or other orders
For Appellant(s): Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Abdul Hameed
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Rajesh Vivekananthan J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
23.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12414 of 2014.
2. The case of the appellants is that the property comprised in Survey
No.198/12, situated in Kizhaiyur Village, Ilaiyankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District,
measuring an extent of 4 acres and 80 cents, comprised in Patta No.804,
belonged to the husband of the first appellant and the father of the second and
third appellants, namely, late Alisuban. The said patta was issued in his favour
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
by the Deputy Tahsildar, Ilaiyankudi, on 30.07.1987, vide proceedings in
R.Dis.D.A.No.53/73.
3. Subsequently, the second respondent, by proceedings dated
15.05.2006 in Na.Ka.No.C-2/33871/99, cancelled Patta No.804 issued by the
Deputy Tahsildar on 30.07.1987. Challenging the said cancellation order, late
Alisuban filed W.P.No.8497 of 2006 before the Madurai Bench of this Court.
The said writ petition was allowed, and the cancellation order was set aside.
4. Thereafter, late Alisuban submitted a representation to the second
respondent seeking issuance of patta. As the same was rejected, he preferred
an appeal before the competent authority. In the meantime, he filed
W.P.No.848 of 2013 seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal. By order
dated 31.01.2013, this Court directed the authority concerned to dispose of
the appeal. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent, by order dated
17.05.2013, confirmed the order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by
the said order, late Alisuban filed W.P.No.12414 of 2014. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 23.01.2024. Challenging the
said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land was
classified as Tharisu (uncultivated land) and assignment granted in favour of
late Alisuban was cancelled, on the ground that the conditions of assignment
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
had not been complied with, particularly the condition requiring cultivation of
the land.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the original assignee, late
Alisuban, had cultivated the land during his lifetime and that, after his demise,
the appellants continued to cultivate the same. It was also contended that the
appellants had been paying the land revenue without default for the relevant
Fasli years. Merely because the land was not cultivated during every Fasli
year, it could not be concluded that the assignee had never brought the land
under cultivation. It was therefore contended that the learned Single Judge
had erred in relying upon the revenue records to conclude that the land had
not been cultivated, and the learned counsel prayed for allowing the Writ
Appeal.
7. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.S. Jarina v. The
Commissioner of Land Administration , passed in W.P.(MD).No.9335 of
2013, dated 03.08.2022 , wherein it was held that an assignment granted prior
to 14.05.1973 could be cancelled only within three years from the date of
assignment. The said decision was affirmed by this Court in W.A.
(MD).No.1534 of 2023, dated 29.09.2023. Subsequently, the Special Leave
Petition filed by the Commissioner of Land Administration in SLP (Diary)
No.24511 of 2024 was also dismissed.
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the assignment was subject to certain conditions and that the assignee and
the appellants had violated two material conditions, namely, the failure to bring
the land under cultivation and the transfer of the land without obtaining prior
permission from the Government. It was further submitted that, upon enquiry,
the authorities found that the land had not been cultivated and that the land
had been transferred without the requisite permission. On the basis of these
violations, the assignment was cancelled.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
10. The appellants have relied upon the assignment granted in favour of
late Alisuban. However, the original assignment order issued in his favour has
not been produced before this Court. The appellants have produced the
proceedings of the Deputy Tahsildar, which stipulates that the land should be
used only for agricultural purposes and that the assignee should abide by the
conditions prescribed in Form-D.
11. On the other hand, the respondents have produced the relevant
Form-D conditions. Condition No.5 specifically stipulates that the land should
be brought under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
Condition No.6 further provides that the assignee and his legal heirs should
personally undertake cultivation of the land. The conditions also provide that,
in the event of any breach, the assignment is liable to be cancelled without
payment of compensation. These conditions are stated to have been imposed
in accordance with Board Standing Order No.15. The authorities concerned
have categorically found that the original assignee failed to comply with the
conditions of assignment and that the assignment was liable to be cancelled
on that ground.
12. The learned Single Judge called for and examined the Adangal
register relating to the property. The entries in the Adangal register indicate
that the land continued to be classified as Tharisu and that there was no
recorded evidence of cultivation from the date of assignment till the date of
consideration of the matter. The learned counsel fairly conceded that the
revenue records did not reflect the actual cultivation carried out by the
assignee or the appellants. Even before this Court, the appellants have not
produced any documentary evidence to establish that the land had been
brought under cultivation, as required by the conditions of the \assignment.
13. The appellants have placed reliance upon the judgment in K.S.
Jarina v. The Commissioner of Land Administration . However, the said
decision is different on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
appellants have failed to establish compliance with the conditions governing
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
the assignment. When the conditions of assignment have been violated, the
Government is entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with the
applicable rules and conditions of assignment. In the facts of the present
case, we find no ground to interfere with the cancellation of the assignment.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.)
29-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKN
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
To
1. The Secretary,
State Government Of Tamil Nadu
Land Acquisition Department,
Saint George Fort,
Chennai-600 005.
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of
Revenue Administration and Commissioner of Land Administratation,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4. The Tahsildar,
Ilaiyankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )

WA No. 1450 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
WA No. 1450 of 2024
29-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:41 pm )