A writ order cannot be sustained if derived from a patta subsequently proven to be bogus.

The 6th Respondent (G. Ramaraj) filed a writ petition (W.P.No.30148 of 2018) seeking restoration of possession of 2 cents of land in S.No.407/1, Sunjalnatham Village, and compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs for alleged illegal eviction

He claimed ownership based on an HSD Patta No.2171/90 dated 24.08.1981

The Writ Court allowed the petition, ordering restoration of possession and costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-

The Appellant (Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways) challenged this order, contending the land was Government poramboke, the 6th Respondent was an encroacher, and the patta produced was a bogus document

During the appeal, the Court directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of the patta

1. Whether the 6th respondent/writ petitioner established a valid legal title/right over the subject property through a genuine assignment or patta

2. Whether the writ order directing restoration of possession and payment of costs was sustainable in light of the classification of the land as Government poramboke

The Court applied the principles of Administrative Law regarding the validity of land assignments and the evidentiary value of revenue records

It relied on the Natham Settlement Scheme (1991) and the Updating Data Registry (UDR) Scheme (1983-1987), which govern the classification and sub-division of Government lands

The legal doctrine applied holds that no valid title can be transferred through a "non-existent" survey number or a "bogus document" lacking mandatory government seals and proceedings numbers

The Court analyzed the enquiry report submitted by the District Collector, Dharmapuri, which revealed that the subject land (Survey No. 407) was only sub-divided into 407/1A, 407/1B, and 407/2 between 1983 and 1987 during the UDR scheme

The 6th Respondent’s alleged patta was dated 1981—prior to the sub-division—and referred to Survey No. 407/1, which did not exist in revenue records at that time

Furthermore, the patta lacked essential file numbers, proceedings numbers, and government seals

The Collector’s report confirmed that Natham Settlement Pattas in that area were only issued starting in 1991

Consequently, the Court found that the Writ Court erred by failing to consider that the petitioner had "no semblance of legal right" and had attempted to squat on Government land using a fabricated document

The High Court set aside the writ order dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.30148 of 2018 and allowed the Writ Appeal

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded for the appeal