Valid, Intact House-Site Assignees Aren’t Encroachers, Madras HC Says, Directing Tahsildar To Consider 10 Record-Correction Requests

The ten petitioners relied on house-site assignment pattas issued by the Tahsildar in 2007 for separate plots in Survey Nos. 36/5, 36/8–10, 36/12, 36/14–18, Vellalavayal Village.

They sought entries or corrections in the village revenue accounts and had submitted representations dated 24 August 2026.

The State relied on a Division Bench judgment in R. Pakkiyaraj v. The District Collector, Pudukkottai and Others, W.P.(MD) No. 23748 of 2026, dated 20 August 2026, and stated that encroachment notices had been issued in compliance with that judgment.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court may direct a public authority to consider a representation and take action in accordance with the applicable records and law.

The Court stated that a person holding a valid assignment that remains in force cannot be treated as an encroacher merely because a direction to remove encroachments had been issued in another case.

The Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in R. Pakkiyaraj, but did not set out its legal reasoning or formulate a broader rule from it.

The petitioners’ requested corrections depended on whether they held valid assignment deeds.

The Court found no impediment to directing the Tahsildar to consider their representations, reasoning that an assignment which remained valid could not, on that basis alone, make the assignee an encroacher.

It therefore made any revenue-record correction conditional on the petitioners having valid assignment deeds, rather than ordering the corrections outright.

If the petitioners had valid assignment deeds, the necessary corrections sought could be made in the revenue records.

No costs were ordered.