JUDGMENT : (J. NISHA BANU, J.) Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 28.10.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.25552 of 2024, the respondents as appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal. 2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to issue a patta in his favour in respect of Survey No.695/Part, to an extent of 15 acres and 65 cents situated at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, in light of the judgment dated 06.12.1985 in C.M.A. No.20 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul, and in light of G.O. Ms. No.84, Environment, Climate Change- Forest (FR.14) Department, dated 02.05.2022. 3. Short facts, shorn of elaboration, are as follows: 3.1. The writ petitioner is in possession of 15 acres and 65 cents of land in S.No.695/Part at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, inherited from his predecessors, who had cultivated banana, lemon, coffee, and other crops on the said land. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act , 1882, was issued on 31.08.1977, proposing to constitute the Sirumalai West Forest Block-1 over 22,204.49 acres, which mistakenly included the writ petitioner’s land. 3.2. The writ petitioner filed Claim No.14 of 1978 before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, seeking exclusion of his land, but the claim was rejected on 07.09.1979. The writ petitioner appealed in C.M.A. No.90 of 1982 before the District Judge, Madurai North, who, on 06.10.1982, directed the Forest Settlement Officer to reconsider the matter. Upon reconsideration, the Forest Settlement Officer, on 30.04.1985, excluded the writ petitioner’s land from the proposed reserve forest area. An appeal by the District Forest Officer in C.M.A.No.20 of 1985 before the District Court, Dindigul, was dismissed on 06.12.1985, affirming the Forest Settlement Officer's decision. 3.3. Subsequently, the Special Tahsildar/Forest Settlement Officer submitted a proposal on 29.10.2010, and a revised proposal on 13.02.2017, to exclude the writ petitioner’s land. This was approved, and by order dated 02.05.2022, the Government officially declared the remaining area as Reserve Forest, effective 08.06.2022, excluding the writ petitioner’s land. Therefore, the writ petitioner was recognized as the absolute owner and is entitled to a patta. 4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents, as appellants, have filed the present writ appeal. 5. Therefore, the writ petitioner was recognized as the absolute owner and is entitled to a patta. 4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents, as appellants, have filed the present writ appeal. 5. The submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General are as follows: 5.1. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to issue a patta in his favour for land in Survey No.695/Part, measuring 15 acres and 65 cents, located at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act , 1882, was issued by the Government for constituting the Sirumalai West Forest Block-I, which included the writ petitioner’s land. This notification was published in the Government Gazette on 31.08.1977. 5.2. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed a claim petition in Claim No.14 of 1978 before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, seeking deletion of the said land from the forest notification. In proceedings dated 30.04.1985 (No. 19/75-A), the Forest Settlement Officer observed that under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act , 1882, only “land at the disposal of the Government,” i.e., “unoccupied land,” can be notified as reserved forest. Since the subject land was found to be under occupation and cultivation, it was held that it could not be included in the forest notification. Accordingly, 3.10 acres in Survey No.389/7 and 15.65 acres in Survey No.695 (Part) were ordered to be excluded from the notified area. 5.3. An appeal against this order was filed by the District Forest Officer in C.M.A.No.20 of 1985 before the District Court, Madurai. The District Court observed that while the learned Government Pleader relied on the decision of this Court in Subramania Gurukkal vs. Arulmigh Thirumaleswara Swamy Deity [A.I.R. 1984 Madras 217] to argue that rejection of a patta under the Estates Abolition Act is final concerning title, there was no evidence that the writ petitioned had ever applied for patta in this case. Therefore, that ruling was not applicable to the facts of this case. 5.4. As per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 1948, all lands in estates, including forest lands, vested with the Government upon the notified date. Therefore, that ruling was not applicable to the facts of this case. 5.4. As per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 1948, all lands in estates, including forest lands, vested with the Government upon the notified date. Section 4 of the Act mandates that survey and ryotwari settlement operations be conducted, and pattas can be granted only as per the provisions of this Act. 5.5. Both the RSR of 1911 and the UDR classify Survey No.695 as “Sarkar Poramboke,” with the remarks column noting it as "forest". This classification predates the Forest Settlement Officer's order. 5.6. Therefore, while the land may have been excluded from the reserved forest notification, the writ petitioner has never applied for patta under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. The classification as "Sarkar Poramboke" disqualifies the writ petitioner from obtaining patta directly from the Regular Tahsildar, who is not the competent authority to grant patta for forest land. The writ petitioner must seek patta through the appropriate application under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. 5.7. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge directing the grant of patta without considering the above legal provisions is erroneous. The appeal is therefore liable to be allowed. 6. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner are as follows: 6.1. The writ petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of 15.65 acres in Survey No.695 (Part), located in Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. This land has been under cultivation by the writ petitioner and his predecessors for over 100 years. The land, historically known as Thalaiyuthu Kadu, formed part of the Ammaiyanaickanur Zamin and was granted to the writ petitioner's grandfather, Periyanayagam Pillai, under a patta by the Zamindar. 6.2. It is customary for Zamin lands to use the suffix "Kadu" to denote cultivable lands, not forests. This is evident in various similarly named lands in the region. An inspection and report by the Forest Settlement Officer in 1985 confirmed that the land was cultivated with lemon, banana, coffee, guava, jackfruit, and arecanut trees for over 35 years, and did not bear characteristics of forest land. 6.3. This is evident in various similarly named lands in the region. An inspection and report by the Forest Settlement Officer in 1985 confirmed that the land was cultivated with lemon, banana, coffee, guava, jackfruit, and arecanut trees for over 35 years, and did not bear characteristics of forest land. 6.3. Though the land was mistakenly included in a 1977 Reserve Forest notification, the Forest Settlement Officer, upon remand by the District Court in C.M.A.No.90 of 1982, excluded the land from the declaration by order dated 30.04.1985. 6.4. The Government's appeal in C.M.A.No.20 of 1985 against this order was dismissed. The District Judge confirmed that the writ petitioner’s possession was lawful, originating from a patta issued by the Zamin. The District Judge held that only unoccupied land could be declared forest land and that the writ petitioner’s occupation was neither unauthorized nor by trespass. The land was incorrectly referred to as "Kadu" in column 12 of the A-Register in 1997, a note column, without supporting records. Settlement proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 1948, were initiated but not concluded. The writ petitioner had applied for patta in 1974, and although action was initiated, no final orders were passed. 6.5. As held in the State of Madras vs. Ramalingaswamigal Madam [ 1969 (2) MLJ 281 ] and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam [ 1985 (4) SCC 10 ] vesting of land under the 1948 Act is subject to existing lawful possession. Possession under a Zamin-issued patta, especially when continuous and for a statutory period, grants valid title. The Government failed to appeal the 1985 District Judge’s order, thereby accepting the writ petitioner’s rights. The Special Tahsildar, Forest Project, by proceedings dated 13.10.2022, recommended sub-division of the land and correction of revenue records. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, has issued pattas to similarly placed occupants after acknowledging similar mistaken entries. 6.6. In light of the above, the writ petitioner respectfully prays that this Court confirm the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.10.2024, direct the Government to make necessary corrections in the revenue records, and enter the writ petitioner’s name as pattadhar for the land in Survey No.695 (Part) measuring to an extent of 15 acres and 65 cents situated at Sirumalai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. 7. 7. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts, in brief, are not in dispute. The writ petitioner and his predecessors have been in long-standing possession and cultivation of the land. Though the land was initially included in the 1977 preliminary forest notification, it was excluded by the Forest Settlement Officer vide proceedings dated 30.04.1985, which was upheld by the District Court in C.M.A. No.20 of 1985. No further challenge was made by the Government, rendering the decision final. 9. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.84, Environment, Climate Change-Forest (FR.14) Department, dated 02.05.2022, confirming the exclusion of the subject land from the Sirumalai West Reserve Forest. The respondent is, therefore, no longer facing any claim from the Forest Department. 10. The principal contention of the appellants is that the land remains classified as “Sarkar Poramboke – Forest” in the revenue records, and that patta cannot be issued without following procedures under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 1948. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, the writ petitioner had applied for patta as early as 1974 and has continued in lawful, uninterrupted possession supported by documentary and historical evidence. 11. The judicial decisions rendered in C.M.A.No.90 of 1982 and C.M.A.No.20 of 1985, both culminating in findings favourable to the writ petitioner, were never assailed further by the State. These judgments, read with the 1985 Forest Settlement Order, recognize the writ petitioner’s lawful possession and exclude the land from forest classification. 12. The argument that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to issue patta overlooks the fact that the land is no longer classified as forest nor in dispute under the Forest Act. Further, in comparable cases in the region, pattas have been issued post exclusion of such lands from forest classification. The Special Tahsildar’s 2022 proceedings further recommended correction of revenue records and sub-division. 13. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly given the inordinate delay in settling the matter and the longstanding possession of the writ petitioner. 14. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. 13. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly given the inordinate delay in settling the matter and the longstanding possession of the writ petitioner. 14. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. The principles of equity, settled possession and administrative consistency all weigh in favour of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.