<p>In a significant ruling that could impinge on the controversy surrounding Justice Dinakaran, whose elevation to the Supreme Court had been put on hold, Justice K Suguna of the Madras HC dismissed the writ petitions by the nine claimants. <br /><br />The petitioners, J Munirathnam and eight others, sought HC directive to the district revenue authorities to issue “pattas” for lands in the village with specific survey numbers in their names and “make appropriate corrections and entries” in the revenue records, claiming they had inherited the plots from their forefathers. <br /><br />But, as “kist” (land revenue) had not been paid by them, the plots had been classified as “anadheenam”—a type of “poromboke” (government) land.</p>
<p>In a significant ruling that could impinge on the controversy surrounding Justice Dinakaran, whose elevation to the Supreme Court had been put on hold, Justice K Suguna of the Madras HC dismissed the writ petitions by the nine claimants. <br /><br />The petitioners, J Munirathnam and eight others, sought HC directive to the district revenue authorities to issue “pattas” for lands in the village with specific survey numbers in their names and “make appropriate corrections and entries” in the revenue records, claiming they had inherited the plots from their forefathers. <br /><br />But, as “kist” (land revenue) had not been paid by them, the plots had been classified as “anadheenam”—a type of “poromboke” (government) land.</p>
