M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED versus R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS. on 6 February 2020

M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY LIMITED

v.

R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No 1318 of 2017)

FEBRUARY 06, 2020

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUDAND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 – ss.10 and 14 – Stateof Tamil Nadu issued various notifications seeking to acquire 49.67acres of land – Registered deed of assignment was executed byGovernor of Madras in favour of WSIL (appellant in C.A. No. 1319of 2017) for 46.04 acres, including the disputed land – WSIL availedloans from banks, secured by deposit of title deeds of disputed lands– Appellant in C.A. No.1318/17 claims an assignment of debts ofWSIL – Govt. Order issued by State of Tamil Nadu empowered theDistrict Revenue Officer (DRO) to rectify defects that may haveoccurred in course of updating records in land registry – 1strespondent sought cancellation of patta in favour of WSIL – Duringthe pendency of proceedings, letter was addressed to Tehsildar forenquiring into 1st respondent’s claim – Recommendation made tocancel patta standing in the name of WSIL – Ordered by DRO –WSIL filed writ petition– Allowed by Single Judge – Division Benchrestored order passed by DRO– Held: Deed of assignmentspecifically records that the lands vested in State of Tamil Nadu freeof all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL– Entire case of 1strespondent was founded on alleged sale deed of 09.10.1929 underwhich his father acquired the land and an alleged oral lease, bywhich the land was leased in favour of WSIL in 1963 – Neither saledeed nor the terms of alleged oral lease were produced – Once thelands were acquired by State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claimof 1st respondent stood extinguished – Under the 1983 Act and1987 Rules, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a‘title dispute’ – A combined reading of s.14 & r.4(4) indicates thatwhere there is dispute w.r.t ownership of a land between partiesw.r.t a patta entry, the correct procedure is to approach a civil court

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1162SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Ahaving competent jurisdiction – Entry records will be updated onthe basis of its decree upon adjudication – Further, the purpose ofthe Govt. Order was to enable the DRO to rectify defects in landregistry – DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in an exerciseof investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting the1st respondent with appellant in land records – Judgment of DivisionBBench and DRO is set aside while that of Single Judge is restored–Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 – r.4(4) – Land AcquisitionAct, 1894.

Disposing of the matters, the Court

CHELD: 1.1 The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, dealswith issues of patta pass book entries with respect to holders ofagricultural lands. Section 6 prescribes that entries in the pattapass book will be considered as prima facie evidence of title. Allentries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar shall beconsidered as prima facie evidence of title of ownership of theDperson, free of all encumbrances. However, the underlyingpresumption is rebuttable. Section 10 provides for the procedureto be adopted for modification of the entries in the patta passbook. Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entryin the patta pass book by submitting an application before theETahsildar. The application shall be accompanied with documentsas evidence, if any, relied upon by the applicant to substantiatehis claim. The Tahsildar shall make a modification in the pattapass book only after giving a reasonable opportunity to theconcerned parties to make their representation. [Paras 15,16][1171-B-D; 1172-C-D]F

1.2 Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court isnot prohibited in all cases. Section 14 only bars suits being filedagainst the government and its officials regarding entries madein the patta pass book. The proviso does not prevent partiesfrom filing suits against rival claimants or individuals and seekingGany of the remedies available under Chapter VI of the SpecificRelief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person who isaggrieved by any entry made in the patta pass book is entitled tofile a suit for declaration of title and the entry in the patta passbook shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. TheHTamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for the procedure to be adopted to deal with enquiries with respect tothe entries made in the patta pass book. Rule 4 provides for theprocedure on recipient of an application or information withrespect to an entry in the patta pass book. In terms of Rule 4(4),the Tahsildar upon being satisfied that a dispute concerning theownership of patta is already pending in a court or any issue thatis raised before him impinges on personal or laws of successionshall direct the concerned parties to obtain an “order ofownership” from a competent civil court having jurisdiction andaccordingly change the entries recorded in various revenuerecords. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 andthe Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is notempowered to adjudicate upon a ‘title dispute’. A combinedreading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where thereexists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land betweenparties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to beadopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction.The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree ofthe civil court upon adjudication. [Paras 17-19][1172-H; 1173-A-C; 1174-C-E]

1.3 On 26 February 1964, the State of Tamil Nadu executeda deed of assignment in favour of WSIL. The deed of assignmentspecifically records that the lands vested in the State of TamilNadu free of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. Theentire case of the first respondent, was founded on an allegedsale deed of 9 October 1929, under which his father acquired theland and an alleged oral lease, by which the land was leased infavour of WSIL in 1963. Neither the sale deed nor the terms ofthe alleged oral lease have been produced in the course of theproceedings. Once the lands were acquired by the State of TamilNadu, any pre-existing claim of the first respondent would standextinguished. The purpose of the Government Order dated 17August 2004, is to enable the DRO to rectify the defects in theland registry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging inan exercise of investigating the title to the disputed land andsubstituting the first respondent with the appellant in the landrecords. Once the first respondent has accepted the fact of theacquisition of the lands by the State Government, clearly then,the first respondent would have no subsisting interest in the land.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAs a result, the first respondent did not have any locus to pursuethe application before the DRO for correction of land records.The judgment and order of the Division Bench is set aside . Inconsequence, the order of the DRO is set aside and the judgmentof the Single Judge is restored. [Paras 21-23][1175-A-H]

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1318of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1201 of 2016.

WithC

Civil Appeal No. 1319 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1906of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1319 of 2017.

Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, C. AriyamaSundaram, Sr. Advs., Atul Sharma, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Akash Lamba,DM/s. M. Rambabu And Co., Amar Dave, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal,Ms. Gunika Gupta, Divyang Gobind Chandiramani, Sanjiv Kumar, ShaishirS. Divatia, K.P. Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta,Zafar Inayat, K.P. Sathish Kumar, B. Mohanraj, K. Kanagaraj, E. C.Agrawala, M. Yogesh Kanna, T.R.B. Siva Kumar, M. Karthiga, K. V.Vijayakumar, D. L. Chidananda, V. Balaji, Vinod Mehta, Atul Mehta,ERakesh K. Sharma, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Mullapudi Rambabu, ShravanathParuchuri (for M/s. M. Rambabu And Co.), S. Gowthaman, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.F

1. The present appeals[1] arise from a judgment and order of aDivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22December 2016. While allowing a writ appeal[2] filed by the first respondent,the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment and orderof a learned Single Judge dated 30 August 2016, which was rendered inGa challenge by the appellants to an order dated 28 December 2015 ofthe District Revenue Officer[3], Tiruvallur.

1 Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and 1319 of 2017

2 WA no 1201 of 2016

H3 “DRO”

2. WS Industries (India) Ltd[4], the appellant in Civil Appeal No1319 of 2017 was incorporated on 23 August 1961 under the CompaniesAct 1956. Between 27 December 1961 and 8 May 1963, the State ofTamil Nadu issued various notifications under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act 1894[5], seeking to acquire 49.67 acres of land situated atPorur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallar District, Tamil Nadu. The landwhich was the subject matter of acquisition under a notification dated 20June 1962, included survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77, comprising anoverall area of 46.04 acres. On 4 July 1962, the State of Tamil Naduissued a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act withreference to 11.61 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and77. On 17 October 1962, a notification was issued under Section 6 withreference to 1.50 acres of land comprised in survey number 70/1. Thiswas followed by awards dated 20 August 1963, 28 March 1963, 25October 1963 and 7 November 1963 covering an aggregate area of13.11 acres of land.

3. On 26 February 1964, a registered deed of assignment wasexecuted by the Governor of Madras in favour of WSIL for an area of46.04 acres including the disputed land. The deed of assignment recordedthat the State of Tamil Nadu had been paid an amount of ` 1,86,528.52by WSIL towards the cost of acquisition. In August 1964, WSIL availedof a loan from ICICI Bank which was secured by a deposit of the titledeeds of the disputed lands. WSIL also obtained various loans and creditfacilities from other banks which were secured by the creation ofmortgages on land stated to be admeasuring about 29 acres.

4. On 17 August 2004, the State of Tamil Nadu issued aGovernment Order[6] empowering the DRO to rectify defects that mayhave occurred in the course of updating the records in the Land Registry.Edelweiss Asset Construction Co Ltd, the appellant in Civil Appeal No1318 of 2017, claims an assignment of the debts of WSIL.

5. The dispute in the present case arose on 7 September 2015,when the first respondent filed an application before the DRO seekingto rectify the revenue records in respect of the lands bearing surveynumbers 70/1, 73 and 77. On 12 September 2015, the first respondentaddressed a legal notice to WSIL claiming an area admeasuring 4 “WSIL”

5 “Land Acquisition Act”

6 GO No 385

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aapproximately 13.65 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and77. The case which the first respondent set up before the DRO was thathis father, D Rajagopal, had purchased a “larger extent of land” in PorurVillage, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District under a registered sale deeddated 9 October 1929. These lands admeasuring 20.47 acres werealleged to be comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 71, 72 and 77. The firstBrespondent claimed that in 1962, his father had leased the above 20.47acres of land to WSIL for a period of fifty years. According to the firstrespondent, based on the lease and possession, WSIL obtained a patta intheir favour. The first respondent claimed that after the expiry of theterm of the lease, WSIL was bound to deliver possession of the land andCthat it had no right or interest over the land. On this basis, the firstrespondent sought the cancellation of the patta in favour of WSIL. Thefirst respondent claimed that he was in possession of the original saledeed in respect of 20.47 acres of land which he was ready to produce.Both in the petition before the DRO which was submitted on 7 September2015, and legal notice sent to WSIL, a similar claim was set up.D

6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRO, aletter was addressed on 11 September 2015 to the Tehsildar for conductingan enquiry into the claim of the respondent. The Tehsildar addressed acommunication dated 29 October 2015 and recorded the case of thefirst respondent that his father had acquired the lands under a registeredEsale deed dated 9 October 1929 and that by an oral lease, an extent of13.65 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 had beengranted to WSIL for a period of fifty years. The Tehsildar, in his reportto the DRO, took note of the contention of WSIL that the land had beenacquired by the State of Tamil Nadu. Eventually, on the basis that WSIL

Fhad not furnished any document in respect of the land comprised insurvey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 admeasuring 13.65 acres and relyingon the case of the first respondent, a recommendation was made forcancelling the patta standing in the name of WSIL. The application wasdisposed of by the DRO by an order dated 28 December 2015. TheDRO ordered that:G

“It is ordered that the registry in respect of the lands in S. No.73/2 measuring 0.92.0 hectares and S. No.77 measuring 2.30.0hectares of Porur Village, Ambattur Taluka, made in the name ofW.S. Insulators of India Limited during the updating registryscheme is liable to be cancelled and ordered to register in theH

name of the applicant Thiru R. Perumalswamy S/o (late) ThiruRajagopal.”

7. Aggrieved by the order of the DRO, WSIL instituted writproceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.By a judgment dated 30 August 2016, a learned Single Judge allowedthe writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of the acquisitionproceedings by the State of Tamil Nadu and came to the conclusion thatupon acquisition, the lands vested absolutely in the State Governmentfree of all encumbrances. The learned Single Judge observed that whilepurporting to rectify the defects in the land registry in terms of theGovernment Order dated 17 August 2004, the DRO placed reliance onthe report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur, of which a copyhad not been furnished. Moreover, it was noted that though the father ofthe first respondent died on 29 November 2004, it was only in September2015 that the jurisdiction of the DRO had been invoked. The learnedSingle Judge held that the DRO had committed a manifest error inenquiring into the title to the lands in question and had therefore acted inexcess of its jurisdiction. The order passed by the DRO was accordinglyset aside.

8. In a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned SingleJudge, a Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated22 December 2016, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judgeand restored the order passed by the DRO. In the view of the DivisionBench, the DRO acted within jurisdiction in rectifying the mistake in theland records and it was open to him to verify the documents on whichreliance had been placed by the parties. The finding of the learned SingleJudge that the DRO had acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding aquestion of title did not find favour with the Division Bench. Aggrievedby the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, both EdelweissAsset Construction Co Ltd and WSIL filed two separate Special LeavePetitions before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

9. By an order dated 24 April 2019, this Court recorded thesubmissions which were urged on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu inthe following terms and issued the directions which are extracted below:

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadustates that he has been able to obtain, upon a thorough search, therelevant documents from the Industries Department which he seeksto place in the form of a compilation.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHowever, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if anydocuments that the State seeks to file at this stage are dulysupported by an affidavit. We permit the State of Tamil Nadu todo so within a period of two weeks from today.

An advance copy of the affidavit together with the compilation ofBdocuments shall be made available to the contesting parties inthese proceedings.

The parties would be at liberty to respond to the affidavit whichwill be filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu within a periodof three weeks thereafter.

CList on 16 July 2019.”

10. In pursuance of the above directions, the State of Tamil Nadufiled a compilation of additional documents on an affidavit. Thesedocuments comprise of the records of the Industries Department. Interms of the order passed by this Court, an opportunity was granted toDall the parties appearing before this Court to controvert the contents ofthe additional documents which were placed on record.

11. The State of Tamil Nadu has submitted on affidavit that theState Government had acquired the subject land which was assigned toWSIL by way of a deed of assignment dated 26 February 1964 for theEpurpose of constructing a factory. A copy of the deed of assignmentwhich has been annexed to the affidavit contains a recital that (i) thelands vested absolutely in the State Government free from allencumbrances; and (ii) WSIL had paid an amount of ` 1,86,528.52towards the cost of acquisition. Under the terms of the deed ofFassignment, the State Government assigned the land to WSIL forestablishment of a factory. The State Government reserved to itself theright to resume the land in whole or in part, if it was not used by thecompany for the purpose for which it was acquired within a period ofone year or within such extended period as may be allowed. The affidavitof the State Government further states that a request was made byGWSIL for transfer of 7.61 acres from a portion of the land acquired by itto S & S Power Switchgear Limited, a sister concern of WSIL. On 8June 1977, the State Government allowed WSIL’s request to transfer anextent of 31,311.50 square meters of land. The State Government alsodirected the transferee to apply for an exemption for holding excessland under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976 as thenH

applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, on 26 February2002, WSIL made another request to the State Government to transferan extent of 14 acres to its subsidiary M/s WS Electric Limited forsetting up of a Software Technology Park. This request was acceded toby the State Government on 17 September 2002. From the affidavit filedby the State of Tamil Nadu, it appears that subsequently on 30 September2002 another request was made for deletion of some part of the landwhich had already been ordered to be transferred on 17 September2002. On the aspect of addition of certain other lands for the developmentof Software Technology Park, the State Government stated that itacceded to the request on 13 May 2003. The State Government has alsobrought this Court’s attention to the fact that on 5 October 2017, it hadissued a notice to show cause to WSIL for violation of the deed ofassignment dated 26 February 1964 and was proposing to resume theland. An important aspect which merits emphasis at this stage is that on17 May 2019, the Joint Sub-Registrar issued details of the EncumbranceCertificate regarding survey numbers 70, 73 and 77 to the DistrictCollector, Chennai. By a communication dated 16 June 2019, the JointSub-Registrar has also forwarded a copy of the HR Register which hasa bearing on the disputed lands in question. In the present proceedings,we are not concerned with the merits of the show cause notice and thesubsequent proceedings initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu forresumption of the land.

12. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr Neeraj KishanKaul and Mr C A Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant have submitted that the lands in question were acquiredby the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land AcquisitionAct. Upon acquisition, the lands vested in the State Government andwere assigned under a registered deed of assignment dated 26 February1964 in favour of WSIL. Learned counsel submitted that the case thatwas sought to be set up by the first respondent was on the basis that hisfather had acquired the land under a registered sale deed dated 9 October1929. Moreover, it was urged by the first respondent that an oral leasehad been executed by the predecessor of the first respondent in favourof WSIL in 1962 for a term of fifty years and upon the expiry of thelease, the land was to be reverted back to the owner. Learned Counselsubmitted that upon the acquisition of the land in question by the State ofTamil Nadu, the land vested in the government free of all encumbrancesand it was not open to the first respondent to move an application for AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arectification of the land record. Moreover, it was urged that neither thesale deed dated 9 October 1929, nor the terms of the oral lease wereproved and placed on record. It has been submitted that in spite of theorder of this Court granting a status quo, the first respondent attemptedto deal with the lands in violation of the interim order. That apart, it hasbeen urged that the Encumbrance Certificates which were relied uponBby the first respondent, constituted the sole basis of the claim and therecord which was produced by the State of Tamil Nadu, indicated thatthe encumbrance certificates had been interpolated.

13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of TamilNadu has submitted that the State Government had issued a resumptionCnotice to WSIL and that it would independently take such action as isnecessary in accordance with law. However, it was urged that the firstrespondent had no locus to move an application for rectification of landrecords before the DRO. It was argued that the lands had been dulyacquired by the State of Tamil Nadu and any interest that the firstDrespondent claimed through his father, would stand extinguished and hisclaim at the highest could have been to seek a remedy for compensationin accordance with law. In any event, it has been submitted that theentire case of the first respondent is based on a sale deed which has notseen the light of the day either before the DRO or before the HighCourt. It was argued that the first respondent has failed to produceEownership documents to prove title even before this Court.

14. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, it is necessary tonote that notice had been duly served and leave was granted in both theappeals on 27 January 2017. The first respondent had filed a caveat andappeared at various stages of the hearing of the proceedings. We mayFnote that the appeals were heard in part on 14 February 2019 and 21February 2019. On 24 April 2019, an order was passed by this Court, theterms of which have already been noted earlier. At all these stages, thefirst respondent has been duly represented by counsel and has beenheard. Eventually, as a result of a change in assignments, the appealsGwere directed to be released as part heard cases and were accordinglyplaced before this Bench for hearing. During the course of the hearingof the proceedings, the first respondent was represented byMr Ramasubramanian and Mr M Munusamy, learned Counsel.Mr Ramasubramanian, however, informed this Court later that he hadappeared on the bona fide instructions of his junior and has now receivedH

instructions not to appear in the proceedings. We may note that theattention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that in the present casethere has been a succession of Advocates-on-Record who have beenchanged in the course of proceedings.

15. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, deals with issuesof patta pass book entries with respect to holders of agricultural lands.Section 6 prescribes that entries in the patta pass book will be consideredas prima facie evidence of title. Section 6 provides thus:

“6. Entries in the patta pass book to be prima facie evidence oftitle.- The entries in the patta book issued by the Tahsildar undersection 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the person inwhose name the patta pass book has been issued to the parcels ofland entered in the patta pass book, free of any prior encumbrance,unless otherwise specified therein.”

All entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar shall beconsidered as prima facie evidence of title of ownership of the person,free of all encumbrances. However, the underlying presumption isrebuttable.

16. Section 10 provides for the procedure to be adopted formodification of the entries in the patta pass book as follows:

“10. Modification of entries in the patta pass book.- (1) Whereany person claims that any modification is required in respect ofany entry in the patta pass book already issued under section 3either by reason of the death of any person or by the reason ofthe transfer of the land or by reason of any other subsequentchange in circumstances, he shall make an application to theTahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the pattapass book.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain suchparticulars, as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied bythe documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence insupport of his claim.

(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section(1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribedand shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the partiesconcerned to make their representations either orally or in writing.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

If the Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made inrespect of entries in the patta passbook, he shall pass an orderaccordingly and shall make such consequential changes in thepatta pass book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effectto his order.

B(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting anymodification of the entries in the patta pass book, he shall rejectthe application.

(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasonsfor such order and shall be communicated to the parties concernedCin such manner as may be prescribed.”

Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entry in thepatta pass book by submitting an application before the Tahsildar. Theapplication shall be accompanied with documents as evidence, if any,relied upon by the applicant to substantiate his claim. The Tahsildar shallDmake a modification in the patta pass book only after giving a reasonableopportunity to the concerned parties to make their representation.

17. Section 14 provides for bar of certain suits against thegovernment or any officer of the government in respect of a claim tohave any entry made in any patta pass book. Section 14 provides asfollows:E

“14. Bar of suits.- No suit shall lie against the Government or anyofficer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entrymade in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act orto have any such entry omitted or amended:

FProvided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right ofwhich he is in possession, by an entry made in the pattapass book under this Act, he may institute a suit for adeclaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the SpecificRelief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry inthe patta pass book shall be amended in accordance withGany such declaration.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court is not prohibitedin all cases. Section 14 only bars suits being filed against the governmentHand its officials regarding entries made in the patta pass book. The proviso does not prevent parties from filing suits against rival claimants orindividuals and seeking any of the remedies available under Chapter VIof the Specific Relief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person whois aggrieved by any entry made in the patta pass book is entitled to file asuit for declaration of title and the entry in the patta pass book shall beamended in accordance with such declaration.

18. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for theprocedure to be adopted to deal with enquiries with respect to the entriesmade in the patta pass book. Rule 4 provides for the procedure onrecipient of an application or information with respect to an entry in thepatta pass book. The relevant portion of Rule 4 provides thus:

“4. Procedure on receipt of application or information. - (1) Onreceipt of the application or information, the Tahsildar shall makean entry in the “Register of Applications Received” in the orderof receipt in Form III. The Register shall be maintained village-wise.

(2) On the basis of the information furnished in the applicationand as available in the existing land records or obtained otherwise,the Tahsildar shall cause to be served or despatched, undercertificate of posting, to the persons having interest on the land anotice in Form IV calling upon them to make representation eitherorally, or in writing at a specific place on a specified date whichshall be not less than fifteen days and forty days later than thedate of receipt of the application or information.

(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar shall conduct a summaryenquiry. At the enquiry, on consideration of age, literacy andoccupation, the Tahsildar may permit an authorised agent of theowner to appear on his behalf to supplement whatever the ownerhas to state orally or in writing. No legal practitioner in hisprofessional capacity shall be allowed to represent any party atsuch an enquiry. There shall not be adjournment of the enquirynot more than twice and that adjournment shall be granted onlyon application made by the parties requesting for adjournment.Reasons for granting or refusing the adjournment shall be recordedby the Tahsildar in writing.

(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a disputeconcerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1174SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aor issues are raised before him which impinge on personallaws or laws of succession and all the parties interested donot agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct theconcerned parties to obtain order on the ownership from acompetent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changingthe entries as already recorded and existing in the variousBrevenue records.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In terms of Rule 4(4), the Tahsildar upon being satisfied that adispute concerning the ownership of patta is already pending in a courtCor any issue that is raised before him impinges on personal or laws ofsuccession shall direct the concerned parties to obtain an “order ofownership” from a competent civil court having jurisdiction andaccordingly change the entries recorded in various revenue records.

19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and theDTamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not empoweredto adjudicate upon a ‘title dispute’. A combined reading of Section 14and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect toownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, thecorrect procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court havingcompetent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis ofEthe decree of the civil court upon adjudication.

20. In the present case, Government Order dated 17 August 2004revoked the powers of rectification of defects in updating of registrycases conferred upon the Tahsildar by Government Order no 921 dated15 August 2001. Instead, Government Order dated 17 August 2004Fempowered the DRO to cure any defects occurring in the land registryafter enquiry. In the present case, the first respondent by an applicationdated 7 September 2015 approached the DRO for change of patta inrespect of the disputed lands. The DRO issued summons to the appellantto prove its legal ownership and possession. By an order dated 28GDecember 2015, the DRO solely relied on the report of the RevenueDivisional Officer and ordered deletion of the appellant’s name from theland records and replaced it with first respondent’s name. The revenueofficer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title. A dispute with respectto the title of land is a mixed question of fact and law, which needs to beraised before a competent civil court.H

21. The narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment makesit clear that on 26 February 1964, the State of Tamil Nadu executed adeed of assignment in favour of WSIL. The deed of assignmentspecifically records that the lands vested in the State of Tamil Nadu freeof all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. The entire case of thefirst respondent, was founded on an alleged sale deed of 9 October1929, under which his father acquired the land and an alleged oral lease,by which the land was leased in favour of WSIL in 1963. Neither thesale deed nor the terms of the alleged oral lease have been produced inthe course of the proceedings. Once the lands were acquired by theState of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claim of the first respondent wouldstand extinguished. The purpose of the Government Order dated 17August 2004, is to enable the DRO to rectify the defects in the landregistry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in an exerciseof investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting the firstrespondent with the appellant in the land records. The learned SingleJudge was correct in holding that the DRO in the guise of acting inaccordance with the said Government Order, wrongly adjudicated uponthe question of title which was beyond jurisdiction.

22. The first respondent raised an argument before the DivisionBench of the High Court that on 26 February 1964, the disputed landwas acquired by the State Government and assigned in favour of WSILbut in 1964 itself, the land thereafter was re-conveyed to the StateGovernment. This submission which has been recorded in paragraph 36of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is in itselfsufficient to displace the case of the first respondent. Once the firstrespondent has accepted the fact of the acquisition of the lands by theState Government, clearly then, the first respondent would have nosubsisting interest in the land. As a result, the first respondent did nothave any locus to pursue the application before the DRO for correctionof land records.

23. For the reasons above, we come to the conclusion that theview taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal isunsustainable and we accordingly set aside the judgment and order ofthe Division Bench dated 22 December 2016. In consequence, the orderof the DRO dated 28 December 2015 is set aside and the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge is restored. The appeals shall accordingly standallowed in the above terms. We however clarify that the Court in the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apresent proceedings has had no occasion to make any observation onthe merits of the show cause notice which has been issued by the Stateof Tamil Nadu to WSIL for resumption of the lands. We keep open allthe rights and contentions of the parties in that regard.

Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1906 of 2017 In Civil AppealBNo 1319 of 2017

24. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and1319 of 2017, nothing remains to be dealt with in this Contempt Petition.The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

25. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

C

Divya Pandey

Matters disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H