Non-payment of prescribed tree tax is sufficient ground to cancel a 2-C patta.

Survey No. 399/1A in Vasudevanallur Village was classified as “Kalam Poramboke.” A “2-C” patta had been granted to the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 24734 of 2024 in respect of 50 trees on the land.

The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 21498 of 2024, a resident claiming to hold agricultural land in the neighbouring Survey No. 413, complained that the patta holder had encroached on the common land.

Following inspection, the revenue authorities cancelled the patta and directed eviction on 15 March 2024. The patta holder challenged that order, alleging, among other things, that no prior notice had been given; the village resident sought removal of the alleged encroachment and cancellation of the patta.

Whether the revenue authorities’ cancellation of the “2-C” patta was liable to be set aside, including on the grounds that the patta holder had allegedly exceeded its scope and failed to pay tree tax regularly.

Whether any further direction was required on the village resident’s request for removal of the alleged encroachment, given the action already taken by the revenue authorities.

The grant related to the specified trees, not occupation or enjoyment of the entire Government land, and breach of those conditions—including failure to pay the requisite tree tax regularly—could constitute grounds for cancellation.

The Court also proceeded on the established classification of the land as “Kalam Poramboke” and the limited nature of the patta holder’s rights in that land.

The Court found that the entire survey field was classified as “Kalam Poramboke” and that the patta covered only the trees, not the land itself.

It accepted the revenue authorities’ inspection findings that the patta holder had used land beyond the grant and damaged the local-body fence. It further noted that tree tax had been paid only up to Fasli Year 1432, with no subsequent payment established before the Court.

The Court treated the failure to pay tax regularly as an independent sufficient ground for cancellation and found no infirmity in the revenue authorities’ order; it did not separately analyse the patta holder’s natural-justice objection.

As to the village resident’s petition, the Court considered the authorities’ action on the encroachment complaint sufficient to dispose of the matter.

W.P.(MD) No. 21498 of 2024 was disposed of because action had already been taken by the revenue authorities regarding the alleged encroachment.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.