A belated Ryotwari patta claim cannot be reopened after statutory claim periods have expired.

The petitioners challenged the Commissioner of Land Administration’s order dated 22 November 2023 rejecting their claims concerning land in Survey No. 54/2, Thanjavur.

They relied on alleged prior settlement patta and revenue entries in favour of their predecessors, and asserted that the land had been purchased in 1976 and possessed as ryotwari punja land.

The revenue records, however, continued to describe the land as “Anadheenam.”

The respondents maintained that the estate had vested in the Government under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors had claimed ryotwari patta within the prescribed period or by the final deadline of 20 August 1987.

The Commissioner rejected the claims after obtaining a report from the District Revenue Officer, prompting these writ petitions

1. Whether the petitioners could obtain alteration of the “Anadheenam” revenue entry and recognition of their claimed rights when they or their predecessors had not pursued a ryotwari-patta claim within the statutory or extended period

2. Whether the Commissioner’s order rejecting the petitioners’ claims warranted interference, in light of their reliance on alleged settlement records and the asserted grant of patta to their predecessor

Under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948), entitlement to ryotwari patta was to be determined by the competent settlement authorities under the statutory scheme

The respondents relied on G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 29 June 1987, which provided a final opportunity to submit claims by 20 August 1987; the Court treated that opportunity as having expired

The Court also referred to *Kiliammal & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.*, W.P. No. 14418 of 2003, etc. batch, decided 29 April 2022, which criticised the continued maintenance of enactments that had outlived their purpose and discussed problems associated with the grant or non-grant of ryotwari patta

The Court concluded that, following repeal of the enactment, a fresh claim under it could not be entertained

The Court accepted that the land formed part of an estate vested in the Government and noted the respondents’ position that the land was recorded as “Anadheenam” because no timely claim had been established during settlement proceedings.

Although the petitioners relied on revenue entries and an alleged prior patta, the Court considered that reliance to require assessment of settlement records and the nature and extent of their claimed rights; it noted that the Commissioner had considered the claim after obtaining the District Revenue Officer’s report.

Because no claim was made by the petitioners or their predecessors within the prescribed period or the final opportunity ending on 20 August 1987, and the statutory scheme could no longer be invoked for a fresh adjudication, the Court found no basis to reopen the matter.

Both writ petitions were dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.