Administrative rejection of Ryotwari patta does not bar civil suits to establish pre-existing land rights.

The petitioners challenged G.O.(Std.)No.237 dated 20.02.2026, issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which rejected their claim for the grant of Ryotwari patta for land in Vellimalai Village

The petitioners claimed title based on a registered Family Settlement Deed dated 16.06.1970

The subject land was originally under Jagirdar control and was taken over by the Government in 1976, subsequently surveyed and converted into Ryotwari lands under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963

The Government rejected the claim, classifying the land as “Government Assessed-free Waste Rocky Land” in Survey No.20/2 and noting that the petitioners’ predecessors had failed to file for settlement or appeal during the relevant period

Additionally, the Government stated the land was required for public purposes

The petitioners have also instituted a civil suit (O.S.No.234 of 2022) regarding the same property

1. Whether the Government's rejection of the petitioners' claim for patta was valid given the land's classification and the procedural history of the settlement

2. Whether the petitioners can pursue a civil remedy to establish pre-existing rights despite the Government’s rejection and the statutory provisions of the 1963 Act

The Court primarily considered the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, which provides the framework for taking over inam lands and converting them into Ryotwari tenure based on established eligibility and pre-existing rights

The court acknowledged the principle that while certain suits may be argued as barred by special statutes, the determination of pre-existing rights based on evidence remains within the province of the Civil Court unless specifically excluded and finalized by the competent authorities

The Court also referenced the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, regarding the authority to grant patta

The Court observed that the Government arrived at its conclusion based on revenue records which classified the land as “Government Assessed-free Waste Rocky Land” following the 1976 settlement

It noted that the petitioners’ father and legal heirs failed to submit petitions or appeals regarding settlement rights during the prescribed timeframes under the 1963 Act

Although the State argued that the petitioners' pending civil suit was expressly barred by the 1963 Act, the Court declined to adjudicate on the suit’s maintainability

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners had already approached a Civil Court, that forum was appropriate for the evaluation of evidence and documents to establish any pre-existing rights

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Government Order through writ jurisdiction while a civil suit was pending to address the factual grievances

It held that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the civil suit (O.S.No.234 of 2022) to redress their grievances or establish their rights as permissible under law

The Civil Court was directed to decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law, affording all parties an opportunity to be heard

No order as to costs was made