ORDER : P.T. ASHA, J. The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “To direct the respondents to rectify the revenue records including the online patta in respect of the subject property comprising 3.89 acres in Survey Nos.66/2 and 67/2 and restore the name of the 1st petitioner in the online patta for the above Survey nos. in line with the physical patta granted in patta no.728 dated 24.12.2002”. 2. The case on hand highlights a very dangerous trend wherein after giving undertaking before the Court, the said undertakings are sought to be set at naught in subsequent cases by stating that these orders have been passed at the instance of the person without authority. It is rather unfortunate such a trend is being adopted by the State. The facts narrated below would highlight the anxiety and apprehension of this Court. 3. The 1 st petitioner's husband one Madhavan, who is a retired Indian Air Force personnel had been assigned lands to an extent of 3.89 acres in S.No.411/1, 411/2, 411/3, 411/4, in Karanai Puducherry, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram, bearing Reference No.DC-78/76 dated 31.03.1967. 4. After the assignment in favour of the 1 st petitioner's husband, the Forest Department had entered possession of the said lands constraining the said Madhavan to institute W.P.No.10733 of 1993, on the file of this Court for removal of the encroachments by the Forest Department. 5. The Forest Department filed a counter affidavit wherein they had offered assignment of equivalent lands in S.No.67/2 measuring 72 cents and S.No.66/2 measuring 3.17 acres. Pending the above Writ Petition, Madhavan passed away and the 1 st petitioner was substituted as his legal heirs. 6. By order dated 24.03.1999, recording the undertaking of the respondents therein for assignment of alternate lands as in the counter, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to grant patta and deliver possession of the land in S.No.66/2 and 67/2 in Thazambur Village to the 1 st petitioner. 7. Despite the above order, which had been passed on the basis of the undertaking, the respondents failed to comply with the directions. Therefore, the 1 st petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.848 of 1999. In this petition, the 5 th respondent herein had sworn an affidavit on 13.10.1999, stating that no claim petition was pending in respect of the lands in Thazambur village, which is classified as Anadheenam. 8. Therefore, the 1 st petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.848 of 1999. In this petition, the 5 th respondent herein had sworn an affidavit on 13.10.1999, stating that no claim petition was pending in respect of the lands in Thazambur village, which is classified as Anadheenam. 8. Since the 1 st petitioner was not put in possession by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the 1 st petitioner filed W.P.No.1159 of 2001 and by an order dated 28.01.2002, this Court pleased to direct the District Collector to put the 1 st petitioner in possession of the subject lands in S.No.66/2 and 67/2 in Thazambur Village. Even thereafter, the orders of this Court was not obeyed. 9. The 1 st petitioner preferred Cont.P.No.794 of 2002. By an order dated 12.12.2002, the contempt petition was disposed of directing grant of patta to the 1 st petitioner and to put the petitioner in possession of the land. The jurisdictional Tahsildar thereafter handed over possession which is recorded in the Land Delivery Receipt dated 21.12.2002 and she was also issued with the patta in patta No.728 dated 24.12.2002. The extent of 3.89 acres in S.No.66/2 and 67/2 at No.31, Thazambur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, was the subject matter of patta No.728. No objection was also issued by the Jurisdictional Tahsildar on 26.11.2007. 10. The 1 st petitioner thereafter decided to develop the lands and had entered into an agreement of development with the 2 nd petitioner on 28.12.2007, nearly 5 years after possession was handed over to her. On the basis of the agreement for development, the petitioner had decided to promote Villas/row houses and apartments in the said lands after obtaining necessary approvals from the statutory authority on joint venture basis. 11. The petitioner applied for requisite approvals which included the layout approval in Na.Ka.No.425/2008 dated 22.08.2008, planning permit No.4/2011/MLPA dated 03.02.2011 and completion certificate dated 27.11.2015, which was received from the local authorities. 12. The 2 nd petitioner put up 32 villas and 75 apartments which were to be shared between the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners. The total constructed area was 1,13,000 sq.ft., The 2 nd petitioner had sold their share of constructed area to third parties/purchasers. The share of the 1 st petitioner was handed over to her and she proposed to sell the portion of both the apartments and villas in the said layout. 13. The total constructed area was 1,13,000 sq.ft., The 2 nd petitioner had sold their share of constructed area to third parties/purchasers. The share of the 1 st petitioner was handed over to her and she proposed to sell the portion of both the apartments and villas in the said layout. 13. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner came to learn that Public Interest Litigation was filed by one S.Raja in W.P.No.11156 of 2018, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to inspect village records, determine the Government lands, remove the encroachment, correct the mutation entries in revenue records and take possession of the Government Lands. The petition was silent about the name of the village or the extent of the Government land, which is encroached. 14. The Government of Tamil Nadu made a statement that they are contemplating to conduct of a discreet enquiry in Thazambur village. On their representation, an order of status quo was granted by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Thereafter, the Government issued a Government Order stating that they were constituting committee to conduct a discreet enquiry, with reference to these lands in Thazambur village and submit a report to the Government. 15. The Land Administration Department had directed the Inspector General of Registration not to permit transfer of Anadheenam lands as per online patta and furnish a list of blocked Anadheenam lands with further direction to inquire into transactions already made. The aforesaid action was contested and the matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. As far as the petitioner's land in S.No.62/2 and 67/2 were concerned they were not part of the list of blocked Anadeenam lands A circular of the Land Administration Department dated 11.12.2019 listed out various survey numbers, wherein, the 1 st petitioner's land do not find a mention. 17. However, when the 1 st petitioner attempted to sell a portion of her share in the constructed area the online patta in respect of the aforesaid lands were updated incorrectly. The patta in respect of the lands in S.No.66/2 had been updated online in the name of the petitioner but the land in S.No.67/2 was updated as Government lands, blocking further registration. 18. The petitioner aggrieved by this incorrect classification has given several representation to rectify the error in respect of 67/2. However, the respondents have not taken up the same for consideration. 18. The petitioner aggrieved by this incorrect classification has given several representation to rectify the error in respect of 67/2. However, the respondents have not taken up the same for consideration. Meanwhile, the residents of the said layout, namely, “Lakewood Enclave” made representation to the Commissioner of Land Administration on 10.01.2024, which had also met with no response. 19. Thereafter, at the request of the 1 st petitioner the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 10.06.2022 requested the District Collector, Chengalpet, to take necessary steps to redress the grievances of the 1 st petitioner. However, no steps were taken in this regard. 20. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have not even followed the circular issued by Director of Survey & Settlement, dated 31.03.2022, dealing with the release/removal of block in online pattas. After having conveyed the lands to the 1 st petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Court and on the basis of the undertaking given by them the present action in not permitting the alienation in respect of the property is totally misconceived and therefore the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to rectify the revenue records in respect of the subject property. 21. The respondents have not filed any counter though the matter has been pending since October 2024 and arguments have been advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. 22. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of the Court to the earlier proceedings whereunder the respondents had agreed to offer alternate sites to the 1 st petitioner as the legal representative of the original assignee and have ultimately they have not only assigned the land to the 1 st petitioner but had also granted patta in respect of the same. 23. The learned senior counsel would submit that after having assigned the property and granted patta, the respondents are now taking advantage of the Public Interest Litigation, to set at naught the earlier assignment. He would also submit that today the property in question has been fully developed and have villas and apartments in the said property. 24. Per contra, Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. He would also submit that today the property in question has been fully developed and have villas and apartments in the said property. 24. Per contra, Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader, would submit that the entire lands in Thazambur village are Anadeenam lands and that pattas had been given by the revenue authorities in the lower level for extraneous reasons/consideration. He would submit that issue with reference to these lands is now the subject matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, he would submit that the order correcting classification in the online patta is very much in order. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 25. This Court has perused the affidavit, documents and considered the arguments that have been advanced on the either side. 26. It is an admitted fact that originally the 1 st petitioner's husband who retired from the Indian Air Force had been assigned with the lands measuring an extent of 3.89 acres in S.Nos.66/2 and 67/2. The 1 st petitioner's husband happens to be a war veteran. These lands were encroached upon by the Forest Department. The original assignee who is the 1 st petitioner's husband had moved this Court by filing W.P.No.10733 of 1993. The Writ Petition was filed against the District Collector, Chengalpattu. 27. A perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.10733 of 1993 dated 04.03.1999 would indicate that in the said proceedings the Government had come forward to assign an extent of 3.17 acres in S.No.67 and another extent of 72 cents in S.No.66, constituting the very same extent of 3.89 acres, originally assigned to the said Madhavan. The Court recorded this undertaking of the Government and directed the 1 st respondent to make necessary changes in the order of assignment granted as early as on 31.03.1967 in D.C.No.78/76 and issue patta to the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks. 28. The respondents did not comply with the undertaking given by them. Therefore, the 1 st petitioner herein who had been impleaded as the 2 nd petitioner in the Writ Petition pursuant to the death of her husband had filed Cont.P.No.848 of 1999. 28. The respondents did not comply with the undertaking given by them. Therefore, the 1 st petitioner herein who had been impleaded as the 2 nd petitioner in the Writ Petition pursuant to the death of her husband had filed Cont.P.No.848 of 1999. By order dated 08.03.2000, the learned Judge observed that there is no serious dispute with regard to the entitlement of the applicant and considered representation of the then Special Government Pleader giving reasons for the delay and complying with the orders of the Court. The order in the above contempt petition is extracted herein below: “However, there was a delay in complying with the above direction. Mr.Patty B. Jegannatha, learned Special Government Pleader explained that before complying with the direction of this Court dated 24.03.1999, the Collector was required to get necessary clarification from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai to verify as to whether there is any claim pending as on 15.02.2000 dddating to Survey Nos.66 and 67/2, Thazhambur Village which was decided to be assigned to the applicant.” 29. The Court had also taken note of the sworn affidavit filed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on 15.02.2000 before the Court stating as per the report from the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu there was no claim petition pending as on 13.10.1999, with regard to the lands comprised in S.Nos.66 and 67/2, Thazambur village, which is classified as “Anadeenam lands”. 30. The Court directed the Collector to pass orders assigning patta to the 1 st petitioner herein. The 1 st petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.1159 of 2001 before this Court. In the said proceedings, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, namely, the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue and the District Collector, Kancheepuram, stating that the land which is proposed to be assigned to the petitioner is very valuable and therefore the petitioner cannot claim assignment of lands free of cost. 31. The Court proceeded to hold that in the view of Clause 24 of the Standing Order regarding assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen and taking note of the fact that original assignment of lands in the year 1949 was free of cost and that the Government had undertaken to provide alternate land the Government cannot now take a different stand. The Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue patta and deliver possession to the petitioner. The Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue patta and deliver possession to the petitioner. This order was also observed in the breach. 32. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.794 of 2002. This Contempt Petition was closed since the respondent had complied with the orders and the letters produced by the respondents dated 10.07.2003 with the order dated 08.07.2003 has been kept as a part of the records in the contempt proceedings. 33. A perusal of the aforesaid orders and the sequence of events would clearly show that the assignment in favour of the said Madhavan had taken place only after the considered decision on the part of the respondents and on the basis of undertaking given by them and it is not an order which has been passed by a lower level clerk in the Revenue Department. 34. The fact remains that the lands which have been assigned to the petitioner are Government lands and the same have been properly assigned to the petitioner after following due process of law. Not stopping with the assignment, the authorities have also given their approval for forming layout pursuant to which it is now stated that villas and apartments have come up in the said complex and several sale deeds have been registered. 35. Therefore, the entry made in the online patta which is contrary to the physical patta in No.728 has to necessarily be removed and the online patta should be brought in tune with the physical patta. 36. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.