Geetha S vs The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on :29.09.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
WP(MD) Nos. 36391, 33483, 33501, 33502, 33503, 36407, 36408, 36409,
36410, 36411, 36412, 36413, 36414, 36415, 36416, 36417, 36418, 36419,
36420, 36421, 36422, 36423, 36424, 36425, 36426, 36427, 36428, 36429,
36430, 36396, 36395, 36394, 36393, 36392, 36402, 36401, 36400, 36399,
36398, 36397, 36406, 36405, 36404 and 36403 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD011939292025}
and
WMP(MD) Nos. 26424, 26449, 26450, 26454 28967, 28964, 28981,
28975, 28982, 28983, 28984, 28985,28991, 28987, 28988, 28993, 28995,
29004, 28998, 28992, 28986, 29047, 29042, 29036, 29030, 28968, 28973,
28977, 28961, 28976 , 28974, 28970, 28965, 28963, 29045, 29041, 29037,
29031 29026, 29024, 29006, 29001, 28997 and 28994 of 2025
S.Geetha
W/o. Sivakumar,
Main Road,
Kumam Tholu (Post),
Myladumparai Village,
Andipatty Taluk - 625 574,
Theni District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
Collectors Office,
Theni - 625 531.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Theni Collectors Office,
Theni - 625 531.
3. The Sub Collector
Periakulam,
Theni District - 625 605.
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

4. The Tahsildar
Andipatti Taluk,
Andipatti - 625 612,
Theni District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the impugned order of resumption of assigned
lands issued by the 3rd respondent dated 07.11.2025 in Roc.
No.7993/2025/A8-34 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently
direct the respondents to restore the petitioners Patta No.8701 relating to the
petitioners patta land in S. No.87/38 measuring an extent of 0.36.0 Hectares
situated at Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District and pass
such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar
in W.P.(MD)Nos.36391 to 36430 of 2025
Mr.K.Samidurai
in W.P(MD)Nos.33501 to 33503 and
33483 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Barathan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.L.Siva
Government Advocate (civil) for R1 to
R4
in all Wps.
Mr.D.Saravanan for R5
in W.P.(MD)Nos.33501 to 33503
and 33483 of 2025
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

C O M M O N O R D E R
These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the
third respondent/Sub-Collector cancelling the assignment of the property in
favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners on the ground that the
original assignees violated the conditions of assignment.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are purchasers of land from
the persons who were assigned with “Government Poramboke Tharisu land”
under RSO.No.15 with a condition that there should not be alienation of the
property for 30 years . The land in S.No.87/1 measuring an extent of
30.45.0 Hectares in Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, was originally
classified as “Arasu Poromboke Tharisu”. The same was subsequently sub
divided and assigned free of cost to poor and landless persons for carrying
out agricultural operations. As per the original terms of assignment, the
assignees are prohibited from alienating the subject property within 30 years
from the date of assignment.
3. It is also not in dispute that the original assignments were made in
the year 2006, Subsequently, the original assignees sold the property to
third parties and the properties changed hands, in some cases more than
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

twice. The third respondent initiated proceedings for resumption of land for
violation of conditions of assignment. Notice was issued to the concerned
parties including the present owners/pattadhars. After entering the finding
that original assignees sold the properties within the lock-in period
mentioned in the assignment orders, cancelled the assignment of the lands in
favour of original pattadhars and passed orders for resumption of land by
Government. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have come
before this court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass impugned order as the
original assignment was made by fourth respondent. It is also submitted
that in view of order passed by the third respondent instead of fourth
respondent, the petitioners were deprived of right of appeal. The learned
counsel relying on G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated
14.05.1973 would submit that cancellation of the assignment orders can be
done only within three years and in all these cases, the impugned
cancellation orders have been passed nearly after 18 years from the date of
assignment. It is also submitted that the original assignees sold the properties
to third parties and purchasers from the original assignees moved the
revenue authorities and got the records mutated in their names.
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners, after verifying the title documents of their vendors and
revenue records in their names, purchased the properties from the third party
purchasers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land without having
knowledge about the conditions in the original assignment. Therefore,
according to the petitioners, the impugned orders cancelling the assignment
in favour of original assignees ought not to have been passed without
considering the bonafide claim of the petitioners.
6. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the following decisions:
1. P.Mohanavalli Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer
in W.P (MD).No.12923 of 2022
2. T.Tirumalai Gounder Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
and others in W.A.No.1374 of 2008
3. K.Chinnapandi Vs. Alagarsamy and three others
in W.A(MD).No.1272 of 2022.
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents by drawing the attention of this Court to RSO.No.15(15) would
submit that any order passed by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional
Officer or the Collector is liable to be questioned by filing an appeal before
the immediate higher authority mentioned in the said order. Therefore, in
the case on hand, the orders have been passed by the Superior Authority,
namely the third respondent and his orders are liable to be questioned by
filing an appeal before the Collector. Therefore, the petitioners are not
deprived of any right of appeal and no prejudice is caused to them by the
impugned orders passed by the Superior Authority.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973 relied on by the
petitioners is not applicable to the present case as the resumption is resorted
to for violation of assignment conditions. It is also submitted that the
petitioners, without verifying the title of the predecessors in interest under
the parent documents purchased the properties within the lock-in period of
30 years. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim themselves as bonafide
purchasers.
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

9. The first and foremost point argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is with regard to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to cancel
the assignment. According to the petitioners, the original assignment orders
were passed by the Tahsildar and therefore, only Tahsildar is entitled to
resume the land and in the case on hand, the resumption orders have been
passed by the Superior Authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub-Collector.
10. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
that had the orders been passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioners could have
challenged the same by filing appeals before the Revenue Divisional
Officer. In view of the passing of the impugned orders by the officer in the
cadre of Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector, the petitioners are
deprived of their valuable right of appeal. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned orders are liable
to be set aside.
11. RSO.No.15(3)(2)(xi) would indicate that the competent authority
to resume the land in case of breach of conditions of assignment shall be
Tahsildar if the land is non-valuable. In case, the land is valuable, the
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

competent authority to resume the land is the Revenue Divisional Officer.
RSO.No.15(3) (2) (vi) defines valuable lands in following words:
“ Valuable lands includes dry lands the estimated
value of which is Rs.1,000/- or more per acre, wet lands,
irrigable dry lands and such other lands defined as
“valuable” in paragraph 22 of Revenue Standing Order
No.15.”
12. RSO.No.15(22) defines specially valuable lands which reads as
follows:
II. SPECIALLY VALUABLE LANDS
(22) Land which is specially valuable (1) Disposal of
specially valuable lands - (i) Classes of specially valuable lands :-
Lands falling under the following classes shall be treated as
specially valuable :-
(a) Land which is registered as wet under, or is likely to be
brought under irrigation from a Government source of irrigation
deriving its supply from a major irrigation system for which capital
and revenue accounts are kept.
(b) Land which is registered as wet under, or is likely to be
brought under irrigation from, a Government source of irrigation
which does not derive its supply from a major irrigation system for
which capital and revenue accounts are kept.
(c) Land irrigable or likely to be brought under irrigation
from an irrigation project under execution at the cost of the State.
(d) Land which has a special value by reason of its being in
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

large village.
(e) Land at the disposal of the Government included within
the limits of towns but which is not disposed of as building site under
Revenue Standing Order No.21
(f) Any other land which the Collector may for special
reasons consider to be specially valuable.
(g) Dry land the estimated value of which is Rs. 1000/- or
more per acre.
(h) Lands in the proximity of towns.
Note:- The note "shall have the same meaning" as that given
in Paragraph 8 of R.S.O. 21.
13. In the case on hand, it is not clear whether the properties assigned
in favour of the petitioners are valuable lands or non-valuable lands. In
most of the writ petitions in the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, the
property is described as dry land and the value of the property is also
mentioned as more than Rs.1,000/-. In such cases, the assigned properties
shall be treated as valuable lands. If it is so, the competent authority to
resume is the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector and in the case on
hand, the Sub-Collector has passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the
objection as to the jurisdiction of third respondent is not sustainable. On the
other hand, if we treat the subject property as non-valuable land, the
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

competent authority to resume the land is the Tahsildar as per RSO.No.15(3)
(2)(xi). In the case on hand, the resumption orders have been passed by the
Superior Authority, namely, the Sub-Collector. It is contended that in view
of the orders passed by the Superior Authority, the petitioners are deprived
of their valuable right of appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to
RSO.No.15(15), which reads as follows.
Appeals : From every original decision in darkhast cases
whether it is passed by the Tahsildar, the Divisional Officer,
or the Collector, one appeal shall be allowed, provided that it
be made within 30 days of the date on which the original
decision was pronounced or communicated if the appeal is
from the Tahsildar to the Divisional Officer or from the
Divisional Officer to the Collector and within 60 days, if it
be from the Collector to the Commissioner of Land
Administration. In computing the period of limitation the day
on which the decision appealed against was pronounced or
communicated and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
that decision shall be excluded. On all copies issued shall be
entered the date of the decision or communication, the date
of application for copy, the date on which the copy was ready
for delivery and the date on which the appeal time expires.
Any persons interested in the matter may appeal. Appeal to
the Revenue Divisional Officer and to the Collector in
Darkhast cases should be stamped with a court fee label to
the value of two rupees and appeals to the Commissioner of
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

Land Administration should be stamped with a court fee
label to the value of five rupees.
From every original decision in the matter of
assignment of house sites to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other eligible persons by the Special Tahsildar
(Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare) concerned from the lands
acquired with the funds of the Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department and taken possession of, one appeal
shall be allowed to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer
provided, it is made within thirty days from the date on which
the decision appealed against was pronounced or
communicated and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the decision shall be excluded. On all copies issued, shall be
entered the date of decision or communication, the date of
application for copy and the date on which the appeal time
expires. Any person interested in the matter may appeal.
Appeals to District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer
shall be stamped with a court fee label of Rs.2/-.
14. A perusal of the same would indicate that in cases where
resumption order is passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal will lie to the
Revenue Divisional Officer and where the order is passed by the Divisional
Officer, an appeal will lie to the Collector and where the order is passed by
the Collector, an appeal will lie before the Commissioner of Land
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

Administration. Therefore, in the case on hand, even if the order was passed
by the Superior Authority, namely Sub-Collector, an appeal will lie before
the Collector. The petitioners are not deprived of the valuable right of
appeal merely because the order is passed by the officer in the cadre of Sub-
Collector. Hence the first objection raised by the petitioners with regard to
the jurisdiction and the deprivation of right of appeal is rejected.
15. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.2555,
Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973 that the cancellation of assignment
can be done only within three years from the date of assignment. A perusal
of the above said Government Order would indicate that three years
limitation for cancelling the assignment was prescribed, where there has
been material irregularity in the procedure or in the decision with regard to
the assignment. In the case on hand, the original assignment orders are not
cancelled due to the irregularity in the assignment procedure or decision
thereon. The resumption is resorted to due to the violation of assignment
conditions by the assignees. Therefore, the three years limitation period
specified in the above mentioned Government Order is not applicable to the
case on hand. The cancellation of assignment and resumption of land is
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

resorted to due to the subsequent violation of condition by the assignees. The
condition No.4 of the assignment order in “D Namuna” would indicate that
the assignees are prohibited from alienating the assigned property for thirty
years from the date of assignment. In case they decide to alienate the
property after thirty years, they can do so after getting prior permission from
the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case may be.
16. By relying on G.O.(Ms).No.2555 if we say cancellation can be
done only within three years from the date of assignment, in case of
violation after three years, the respondents will be disabled from cancelling
the assignment. In such an eventuality, prescribing a condition in the
assignment order that there shall not be any alienation for a period of thirty
years will become redundant and unenforceable. Therefore, the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by the relying on G.O.
(Ms)No.2555 is not appealable to this Court and the same is rejected.
17. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the original assignees
sold the properties to third parties and the writ petitioners who are all the
present patta holders of the properties purchased the subject properties from
the purchasers from the original assignees. It is vehemently contended that
after verifying the title documents and the revenue documents in the name of
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

petitioners’ vendors, they purchased the property bonafidely without
knowledge of the assignment conditions. Therefore, the impugned orders
rd
passed by the 3 respondent nearly after 18 years from the date of
assignment cannot be sustained.
18. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that they had no
knowledge about the conditions of original assignment and therefore, they
are bonafide purchasers. The petitioners while purchasing the properties
should have verified the parent title documents and the conditions of original
assignment. When the assignment orders in favor of petitioners’
predecessors in interest clearly prohibit alienation of assigned properties in
favour of third parties within 30 years from the date of assignment, the
subsequent purchasers cannot claim that they are bonafide purchasers
without having knowledge about the prohibition against alienation.
19. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
Division Bench decision of this Court in Tirumalai Gounder case cited
supra. In the said case, as per the assignment order therein, there was a
prohibition against alienation for ten years without permission of the
Revenue Authorities. Disregarding the said condition, assignee sold the
property to third party and the petitioners therein purchased the properties
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

from the third party and revenue records were also mutated in the name of
the petitioners therein. On the facts of that case, this Court held that
Revenue Authorities having mutated the revenue records in favour of the
purchasers from the assignee and also the writ petitioners therein impliedly
granted permission for alienation within the period of ten years. Therefore,
even in the absence of express permission for transfer, the act of the
authorities in mutating the revenue records was sufficient to hold that there
was permission on the part of the officials. Therefore, the subsequent order
passed by the officials cancelling the assignment on the ground of alienation
within ten years without getting prior permission from the revenue
authorities was set aside by this Court on the ground that there was implied
permission by mutation of revenue records. The said decision of the
Division Bench was followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Mohanavalli case cited supra. Again, the said decision was followed by
another Division Bench of this Court in Chinnapandi case cited supra,
wherein it was held as follows:
A Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai
Gounder and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2010-5L.W. 289, referred to supra, has
only said that once mutation of revenue records has
been made, absence of permission will not vitiate
the sale. In the case on hand, as we could seen from
the order, mutation of revenue records was effected
after every sale. Therefore, we do not see any reason
15/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

to fault the Writ Court for having allowed the writ
petition in toto.
20. In all these cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
as per the assignment condition, alienation of the property within the lock-in
period was permissible with the permission of the Revenue Authorities.
However, alienation was made without getting permission from the
Revenue Authorities. This Court held that mutation of revenue records by
the revenue officials in favour of the purchaser would amount to implied
permission for alienation and hence the alienation cannot be treated as the
one made without permission of the revenue authorities to entitle the
officials to cancel the patta. The fact situation in the present case is entirely
different. Here, there is a prohibition against alienation within 30 years from
the date of assignment. In other words, I would like to emphasize the
prohibition against the alienation is total and there is no clause in the
assignment order permitting alienation within the lock-in period with the
permission of the revenue authorities. The conditions stipulated in the
assignment order only says, in cases, where the alienation takes place
subsequent to the expiry of 30 years, the permission is required from the
revenue authorities. Therefore, as far as lock-in period of first 30 years are
concerned, there is a total prohibition against alienation. No alienation is
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

permissible either with or without permission of the officials. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the
above mentioned case laws are not appealable to this Court, in view of the
peculiar condition in the case on hand prohibiting the assignees from
alienating the properties for 30 years either with or without permission of the
revenue authorities. Hence, all these case laws relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to support their case.
21. In the light of the discussions made earlier, I do not find any valid
rd
reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent.
Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.10.2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
ub
Note: The Registry is directed to issue order copy by
incorporating the cause title in all cases.
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

To
1. The District Collector
Collectors Office,
Theni - 625 531.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Theni Collectors Office,
Theni - 625 531.
3. The Sub Collector
Periakulam,
Theni District - 625 605.
4. The Tahsildar
Andipatti Taluk,
Andipatti - 625 612,
Theni District.
18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

S. SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
WP(MD) Nos. 36391, 33483, 33501, 33502, 33503, 36407, 36408, 36409,
36410, 36411, 36412, 36413, 36414, 36415, 36416, 36417, 36418, 36419,
36420, 36421, 36422, 36423, 36424, 36425, 36426, 36427, 36428, 36429,
36430, 36396, 36395, 36394, 36393, 36392, 36402, 36401, 36400, 36399,
36398, 36397, 36406, 36405, 36404 and 36403 of 2025
16.10.2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )