Possession alone confers no right to patta; revenue authorities must verify entitlement under law.

The petitioners, who said they were construction workers without residential property of their own, claimed that their Association had acquired nine acres in Survey No. 109, Karanai Village, under an unregistered sale deed in 1998.

The land was divided into plots allotted to Association members, who built houses and resided there. After earlier requests for individual pattas—including a 2010 petition and a 2024 representation—the petitioners sought a direction requiring the revenue authorities to consider representations dated 24 and 26 September 2025 seeking pattas. The State submitted that the land’s classification and the petitioners’ legal entitlement required verification.

Whether the petitioners could claim pattas merely on the basis of their possession of the land.

Whether the revenue authorities should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations for pattas after verifying the land’s nature and the petitioners’ entitlement.

The Court stated that possession of land, by itself, does not give a person a right to claim a patta.

The competent revenue authorities must first verify the nature of the land and assess entitlement before deciding whether a patta may lawfully be granted.

Because the land’s nature and the petitioners’ entitlement had not been established, the Court did not determine whether they qualified for pattas.

It held that those matters required verification by the competent revenue authorities and directed them to decide the representations on their merits, in accordance with law, and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

No costs were awarded.