# M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1161
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-02-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-edelweiss-asset-construction-company-limited-v-r-perumalswamy-and-ors-34261
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - ss.10 and 14 - State
of Tamil Nadu issued various notifications seeking to acquire 49.67
acres of land - Registered deed of assignment was executed by
Governor of Madras in favour of WSIL (appellant in C.A. No. 1319
of 2017) for 46.04 acres, including the disputed land - WSIL availed
loans from banks, secured by deposit of title deeds of disputed lands
- Appellant in C.A. No.1318/17 claims an assignment of debts of
WSIL - Govt. Order issued by State of Tamil Nadu empowered the
District Revenue Officer (DRO) to rectify defects that may have
occurred in course of updating records in land registry - 1st
respondent sought cancellation of patta in favour of WSIL - During
the pendency of proceedings, letter was addressed to Tehsildar for
enquiring into 1st respondent's claim - Recommendation made to
cancel patta standing in the name of WSIL - Ordered by DRO -
WSIL filed writ petition- Allowed by Single Judge - Division Bench
restored order passed by DRO- Held: Deed of assignment
specifically records that the lands vested in State of Tamil Nadu free
of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL- Entire case of 1st
respondent was founded on alleged sale deed of 09.10.1929 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 sale
deed nor the terms of alleged oral lease were produced - Once the
lands were acquired by State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claim
of 1st respondent stood extinguished - Under the 1983 Act and
1987 Rules, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a
'title dispute' - A combined reading of s.14 & r.4(4) indicates that
where there is dispute w.r.t ownership of a land between parties
w.r.t a patta entry, the correct procedure is to approach a civil court
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1161
1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
having competent jurisdiction - Entry records will be updated on
the basis of its decree upon adjudication - Further, the purpose of
the Govt. Order was to enable the DRO to rectify defects in land
registry - DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in an exercise
of investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting the
1st respondent with appellant in land records - Judgment of Division
Bench and DRO is set aside while that of Single Judge is restoredTamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 - r.4(4) - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, deals
with issues of patta pass book entries with respect to holders of
agricultural lands. Section 6 prescribes that entries in the patta
pass book will be considered as prima facie evidence of title. All
entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar shall be
considered as prima facie evidence of title of ownership of the
person, free of all encumbrances. However, the underlying
presumption is rebuttable. Section 10 provides for the procedure
to be adopted for modification of the entries in the patta pass
book. Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entry
in the patta pass book by submitting an application before the
Tahsildar. The application shall be accompanied with documents
as evidence, if any, relied upon by the applicant to substantiate
his claim. The Tahsildar shall make a modification in the patta
pass book only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
concerned parties to make their representation. [Paras 15,
16][1171-B-D; 1172-C-D]
1.2 Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court is
not prohibited in all cases. Section 14 only bars suits being filed
against the government and its officials regarding entries made
in the patta pass book. The proviso does not prevent parties
from filing suits against rival claimants or individuals and seeking
any of the remedies available under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person who is
aggrieved by any entry ma

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY LIMITED
v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No 1318 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 06, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - ss.10 and 14 - State
of Tamil Nadu issued various notifications seeking to acquire 49.67
acres of land - Registered deed of assignment was executed by
Governor of Madras in favour of WSIL (appellant in C.A. No. 1319
of 2017) for 46.04 acres, including the disputed land - WSIL availed
loans from banks, secured by deposit of title deeds of disputed lands
- Appellant in C.A. No.1318/17 claims an assignment of debts of
WSIL - Govt. Order issued by State of Tamil Nadu empowered the
District Revenue Officer (DRO) to rectify defects that may have
occurred in course of updating records in land registry - 1st
respondent sought cancellation of patta in favour of WSIL - During
the pendency of proceedings, letter was addressed to Tehsildar for
enquiring into 1st respondent's claim - Recommendation made to
cancel patta standing in the name of WSIL - Ordered by DRO -
WSIL filed writ petition- Allowed by Single Judge - Division Bench
restored order passed by DRO- Held: Deed of assignment
specifically records that the lands vested in State of Tamil Nadu free
of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL- Entire case of 1st
respondent was founded on alleged sale deed of 09.10.1929 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 sale
deed nor the terms of alleged oral lease were produced - Once the
lands were acquired by State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claim
of 1st respondent stood extinguished - Under the 1983 Act and
1987 Rules, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a
'title dispute' - A combined reading of s.14 & r.4(4) indicates that
where there is dispute w.r.t ownership of a land between parties
w.r.t a patta entry, the correct procedure is to approach a civil court
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1161
1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
having competent jurisdiction - Entry records will be updated on
the basis of its decree upon adjudication - Further, the purpose of
the Govt. Order was to enable the DRO to rectify defects in land
registry - DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in an exercise
of investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting the
1st respondent with appellant in land records - Judgment of Division
Bench and DRO is set aside while that of Single Judge is restoredTamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 - r.4(4) - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, deals
with issues of patta pass book entries with respect to holders of
agricultural lands. Section 6 prescribes that entries in the patta
pass book will be considered as prima facie evidence of title. All
entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar shall be
considered as prima facie evidence of title of ownership of the
person, free of all encumbrances. However, the underlying
presumption is rebuttable. Section 10 provides for the procedure
to be adopted for modification of the entries in the patta pass
book. Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entry
in the patta pass book by submitting an application before the
Tahsildar. The application shall be accompanied with documents
as evidence, if any, relied upon by the applicant to substantiate
his claim. The Tahsildar shall make a modification in the patta
pass book only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
concerned parties to make their representation. [Paras 15,
16][1171-B-D; 1172-C-D]
1.2 Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court is
not prohibited in all cases. Section 14 only bars suits being filed
against the government and its officials regarding entries made
in the patta pass book. The proviso does not prevent parties
from filing suits against rival claimants or individuals and seeking
any of the remedies available under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person who is
aggrieved by any entry made in the patta pass book is entitled to
file a suit for declaration of title and the entry in the patta pass
book shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. The
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
procedure to be adopted to deal with enquiries with respect to
the entries made in the patta pass book. Rule 4 provides for the
procedure on recipient of an application or information with
respect to an entry in the patta pass book. In terms of Rule 4(4),
the Tahsildar upon being satisfied that a dispute concerning the
ownership of patta is already pending in a court or any issue that
is raised before him impinges on personal or laws of succession
shall direct the concerned parties to obtain an "order of
ownership" from a competent civil court having jurisdiction and
accordingly change the entries recorded in various revenue
records. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and
the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not
empowered to adjudicate upon a 'title dispute'. A combined
reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there
exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between
parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be
adopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction.
The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of
the civil court upon adjudication. [Paras 17-19][1172-H; 1173-AC; 1174-C-E]
1.3 On 26 February 1964, the State of Tamil Nadu executed
a deed of assignment in favour of WSIL. The deed of assignment
specifically records that the lands vested in the State of Tamil
Nadu free of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. The
entire case of the first respondent, was founded on an alleged
sale deed of 9 October 1929, 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 the sale deed nor the terms of
the alleged oral lease have been produced in the course of the
proceedings. Once the lands were acquired by the State of Tamil
Nadu, any pre-existing claim of the first respondent would stand
extinguished. The purpose of the Government Order dated 17
August 2004, is to enable the DRO to rectify the defects in the
land registry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in
an exercise of investigating the title to the disputed land and
substituting the first respondent with the appellant in the land
records. Once the first respondent has accepted the fact of the
acquisition of the lands by the State Government, clearly then,
the first respondent would have no subsisting interest in the land.
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
As a result, the first respondent did not have any locus to pursue
the application before the DRO for correction of land records.
The judgment and order of the Division Bench is set aside . In
consequence, the order of the DRO is set aside and the judgment
of the Single Judge is restored. [Paras 21-23][1175-A-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1318
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1201 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No. 1319 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1906
of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1319 of 2017.
Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, C. Ariyama
Sundaram, Sr. Advs., Atul Sharma, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Akash Lamba,
M/s. M. Rambabu And Co., Amar Dave, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal,
Ms. Gunika Gupta, Divyang Gobind Chandiramani, Sanjiv Kumar, Shaishir
S. 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,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Mullapudi Rambabu, Shravanath
Paruchuri (for M/s. M. Rambabu And Co.), S. Gowthaman, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The present appeals1 arise from a judgment and order of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22
December 2016. While allowing a writ appeal2 filed by the first respondent,
the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment and order
of a learned Single Judge dated 30 August 2016, which was rendered in
a challenge by the appellants to an order dated 28 December 2015 of
the District Revenue Officer3, Tiruvallur.
1 Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and 1319 of 2017
2 WA no 1201 of 2016
3 "DRO"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
2. WS Industries (India) Ltd4, the appellant in Civil Appeal No
1319 of 2017 was incorporated on 23 August 1961 under the Companies
Act 1956. Between 27 December 1961 and 8 May 1963, the State of
Tamil Nadu issued various notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act 18945, seeking to acquire 49.67 acres of land situated at
Porur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallar District, Tamil Nadu. The land
which was the subject matter of acquisition under a notification dated 20
June 1962, included survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77, comprising an
overall area of 46.04 acres. On 4 July 1962, the State of Tamil Nadu
issued a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with
reference to 11.61 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and
77. On 17 October 1962, a notification was issued under Section 6 with
reference to 1.50 acres of land comprised in survey number 70/1. This
was followed by awards dated 20 August 1963, 28 March 1963, 25
October 1963 and 7 November 1963 covering an aggregate area of
13.11 acres of land.
3. On 26 February 1964, a registered deed of assignment was
executed by the Governor of Madras in favour of WSIL for an area of
46.04 acres including the disputed land. The deed of assignment recorded
that the State of Tamil Nadu had been paid an amount of ` 1,86,528.52
by WSIL towards the cost of acquisition. In August 1964, WSIL availed
of a loan from ICICI Bank which was secured by a deposit of the title
deeds of the disputed lands. WSIL also obtained various loans and credit
facilities from other banks which were secured by the creation of
mortgages on land stated to be admeasuring about 29 acres.
4. On 17 August 2004, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a
Government Order6 empowering the DRO to rectify defects that may
have occurred in the course of updating the records in the Land Registry.
Edelweiss Asset Construction Co Ltd, the appellant in Civil Appeal No
1318 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 seeking
to rectify the revenue records in respect of the lands bearing survey
numbers 70/1, 73 and 77. On 12 September 2015, the first respondent
addressed a legal notice to WSIL claiming an area admeasuring
4 "WSIL"
5 "Land Acquisition Act"
6 GO No 385
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
approximately 13.65 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and
77. The case which the first respondent set up before the DRO was that
his father, D Rajagopal, had purchased a "larger extent of land" in Porur
Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District under a registered sale deed
dated 9 October 1929. These lands admeasuring 20.47 acres were
alleged to be comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 71, 72 and 77. The first
respondent claimed that in 1962, his father had leased the above 20.47
acres of land to WSIL for a period of fifty years. According to the first
respondent, based on the lease and possession, WSIL obtained a patta in
their favour. The first respondent claimed that after the expiry of the
term of the lease, WSIL was bound to deliver possession of the land and
that it had no right or interest over the land. On this basis, the first
respondent sought the cancellation of the patta in favour of WSIL. The
first respondent claimed that he was in possession of the original sale
deed 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 September
2015, and legal notice sent to WSIL, a similar claim was set up.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRO, a
letter was addressed on 11 September 2015 to the Tehsildar for conducting
an enquiry into the claim of the respondent. The Tehsildar addressed a
communication dated 29 October 2015 and recorded the case of the
first respondent that his father had acquired the lands under a registered
sale deed dated 9 October 1929 and that by an oral lease, an extent of
13.65 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 had been
granted to WSIL for a period of fifty years. The Tehsildar, in his report
to the DRO, took note of the contention of WSIL that the land had been
acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu. Eventually, on the basis that WSIL
had not furnished any document in respect of the land comprised in
survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 admeasuring 13.65 acres and relying
on the case of the first respondent, a recommendation was made for
cancelling the patta standing in the name of WSIL. The application was
disposed of by the DRO by an order dated 28 December 2015. The
DRO ordered that:
"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 2.30.0
hectares of Porur Village, Ambattur Taluka, made in the name of
W.S. Insulators of India Limited during the updating registry
scheme is liable to be cancelled and ordered to register in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1167
name of the applicant Thiru R. Perumalswamy S/o (late) Thiru
Rajagopal."
7. Aggrieved by the order of the DRO, WSIL instituted writ
proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
By a judgment dated 30 August 2016, a learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of the acquisition
proceedings by the State of Tamil Nadu and came to the conclusion that
upon acquisition, the lands vested absolutely in the State Government
free of all encumbrances. The learned Single Judge observed that while
purporting to rectify the defects in the land registry in terms of the
Government Order dated 17 August 2004, the DRO placed reliance on
the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur, of which a copy
had not been furnished. Moreover, it was noted that though the father of
the first respondent died on 29 November 2004, it was only in September
2015 that the jurisdiction of the DRO had been invoked. The learned
Single Judge held that the DRO had committed a manifest error in
enquiring into the title to the lands in question and had therefore acted in
excess of its jurisdiction. The order passed by the DRO was accordingly
set aside.
8. In a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated
22 December 2016, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
and restored the order passed by the DRO. In the view of the Division
Bench, the DRO acted within jurisdiction in rectifying the mistake in the
land records and it was open to him to verify the documents on which
reliance had been placed by the parties. The finding of the learned Single
Judge that the DRO had acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding a
question of title did not find favour with the Division Bench. Aggrieved
by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, both Edelweiss
Asset Construction Co Ltd and WSIL filed two separate Special Leave
Petitions before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
9. By an order dated 24 April 2019, this Court recorded the
submissions which were urged on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu in
the following terms and issued the directions which are extracted below:
"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu
states that he has been able to obtain, upon a thorough search, the
relevant documents from the Industries Department which he seeks
to place in the form of a compilation.
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
However, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if any
documents that the State seeks to file at this stage are duly
supported by an affidavit. We permit the State of Tamil Nadu to
do so within a period of two weeks from today.
An advance copy of the affidavit together with the compilation of
documents shall be made available to the contesting parties in
these proceedings.
The parties would be at liberty to respond to the affidavit which
will be filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu within a period
of three weeks thereafter.
List on 16 July 2019."
10. In pursuance of the above directions, the State of Tamil Nadu
filed a compilation of additional documents on an affidavit. These
documents comprise of the records of the Industries Department. In
terms of the order passed by this Court, an opportunity was granted to
all the parties appearing before this Court to controvert the contents of
the additional documents which were placed on record.
11. The State of Tamil Nadu has submitted on affidavit that the
State Government had acquired the subject land which was assigned to
WSIL by way of a deed of assignment dated 26 February 1964 for the
purpose of constructing a factory. A copy of the deed of assignment
which has been annexed to the affidavit contains a recital that (i) the
lands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all
encumbrances; and (ii) WSIL had paid an amount of ` 1,86,528.52
towards the cost of acquisition. Under the terms of the deed of
assignment, the State Government assigned the land to WSIL for
establishment of a factory. The State Government reserved to itself the
right to resume the land in whole or in part, if it was not used by the
company for the purpose for which it was acquired within a period of
one year or within such extended period as may be allowed. The affidavit
of the State Government further states that a request was made by
WSIL for transfer of 7.61 acres from a portion of the land acquired by it
to S & S Power Switchgear Limited, a sister concern of WSIL. On 8
June 1977, the State Government allowed WSIL's request to transfer an
extent of 31,311.50 square meters of land. The State Government also
directed the transferee to apply for an exemption for holding excess
land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976 as then
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, on 26 February
2002, WSIL made another request to the State Government to transfer
an extent of 14 acres to its subsidiary M/s WS Electric Limited for
setting up of a Software Technology Park. This request was acceded to
by the State Government on 17 September 2002. From the affidavit filed
by the State of Tamil Nadu, it appears that subsequently on 30 September
2002 another request was made for deletion of some part of the land
which had already been ordered to be transferred on 17 September
2002. On the aspect of addition of certain other lands for the development
of Software Technology Park, the State Government stated that it
acceded to the request on 13 May 2003. The State Government has also
brought this Court's attention to the fact that on 5 October 2017, it had
issued a notice to show cause to WSIL for violation of the deed of
assignment dated 26 February 1964 and was proposing to resume the
land. An important aspect which merits emphasis at this stage is that on
17 May 2019, the Joint Sub-Registrar issued details of the Encumbrance
Certificate regarding survey numbers 70, 73 and 77 to the District
Collector, Chennai. By a communication dated 16 June 2019, the Joint
Sub-Registrar has also forwarded a copy of the HR Register which has
a bearing on the disputed lands in question. In the present proceedings,
we are not concerned with the merits of the show cause notice and the
subsequent proceedings initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu for
resumption of the land.
12. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr Neeraj Kishan
Kaul and Mr C A Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant have submitted that the lands in question were acquired
by the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act. Upon acquisition, the lands vested in the State Government and
were assigned under a registered deed of assignment dated 26 February
1964 in favour of WSIL. Learned counsel submitted that the case that
was sought to be set up by the first respondent was on the basis that his
father had acquired the land under a registered sale deed dated 9 October
1929. Moreover, it was urged by the first respondent that an oral lease
had been executed by the predecessor of the first respondent in favour
of WSIL in 1962 for a term of fifty years and upon the expiry of the
lease, the land was to be reverted back to the owner. Learned Counsel
submitted that upon the acquisition of the land in question by the State of
Tamil Nadu, the land vested in the government free of all encumbrances
and it was not open to the first respondent to move an application for
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
rectification of the land record. Moreover, it was urged that neither the
sale deed dated 9 October 1929, nor the terms of the oral lease were
proved and placed on record. It has been submitted that in spite of the
order of this Court granting a status quo, the first respondent attempted
to deal with the lands in violation of the interim order. That apart, it has
been urged that the Encumbrance Certificates which were relied upon
by the first respondent, constituted the sole basis of the claim and the
record which was produced by the State of Tamil Nadu, indicated that
the encumbrance certificates had been interpolated.
13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu has submitted that the State Government had issued a resumption
notice to WSIL and that it would independently take such action as is
necessary in accordance with law. However, it was urged that the first
respondent had no locus to move an application for rectification of land
records before the DRO. It was argued that the lands had been duly
acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu and any interest that the first
respondent claimed through his father, would stand extinguished and his
claim at the highest could have been to seek a remedy for compensation
in accordance with law. In any event, it has been submitted that the
entire case of the first respondent is based on a sale deed which has not
seen the light of the day either before the DRO or before the High
Court. It was argued that the first respondent has failed to produce
ownership documents to prove title even before this Court.
14. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, it is necessary to
note that notice had been duly served and leave was granted in both the
appeals on 27 January 2017. The first respondent had filed a caveat and
appeared at various stages of the hearing of the proceedings. We may
note that the appeals were heard in part on 14 February 2019 and 21
February 2019. On 24 April 2019, an order was passed by this Court, the
terms of which have already been noted earlier. At all these stages, the
first respondent has been duly represented by counsel and has been
heard. Eventually, as a result of a change in assignments, the appeals
were directed to be released as part heard cases and were accordingly
placed before this Bench for hearing. During the course of the hearing
of the proceedings, the first respondent was represented by
Mr Ramasubramanian and Mr M Munusamy, learned Counsel.
Mr Ramasubramanian, however, informed this Court later that he had
appeared on the bona fide instructions of his junior and has now received
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
instructions not to appear in the proceedings. We may note that the
attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that in the present case
there has been a succession of Advocates-on-Record who have been
changed in the course of proceedings.
15. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, deals with issues
of patta pass book entries with respect to holders of agricultural lands.
Section 6 prescribes that entries in the patta pass book will be considered
as prima facie evidence of title. Section 6 provides thus:
"6. Entries in the patta pass book to be prima facie evidence of
title.- The entries in the patta book issued by the Tahsildar under
section 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the person in
whose name the patta pass book has been issued to the parcels of
land 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 be
considered as prima facie evidence of title of ownership of the person,
free of all encumbrances. However, the underlying presumption is
rebuttable.
16. Section 10 provides for the procedure to be adopted for
modification of the entries in the patta pass book as follows:
"10. Modification of entries in the patta pass book.- (1) Where
any person claims that any modification is required in respect of
any entry in the patta pass book already issued under section 3
either by reason of the death of any person or by the reason of
the transfer of the land or by reason of any other subsequent
change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the
Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the patta
pass book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such
particulars, as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied by
the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in
support 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 prescribed
and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties
concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing.
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
If the Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made in
respect of entries in the patta passbook, he shall pass an order
accordingly and shall make such consequential changes in the
patta pass book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect
to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any
modification of the entries in the patta pass book, he shall reject
the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons
for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned
in such manner as may be prescribed."
Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entry in the
patta pass book by submitting an application before the Tahsildar. The
application shall be accompanied with documents as evidence, if any,
relied upon by the applicant to substantiate his claim. The Tahsildar shall
make a modification in the patta pass book only after giving a reasonable
opportunity to the concerned parties to make their representation.
17. Section 14 provides for bar of certain suits against the
government or any officer of the government in respect of a claim to
have any entry made in any patta pass book. Section 14 provides as
follows:
"14. Bar of suits.- No suit shall lie against the Government or any
officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry
made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or
to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of
which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta
pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit for a
declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in
the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with
any such declaration."
(Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court is not prohibited
in all cases. Section 14 only bars suits being filed against the government
and its officials regarding entries made in the patta pass book. The proviso
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
does not prevent parties from filing suits against rival claimants or
individuals and seeking any of the remedies available under Chapter VI
of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person who
is aggrieved by any entry made in the patta pass book is entitled to file a
suit for declaration of title and the entry in the patta pass book shall be
amended in accordance with such declaration.
18. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for the
procedure to be adopted to deal with enquiries with respect to the entries
made in the patta pass book. Rule 4 provides for the procedure on
recipient of an application or information with respect to an entry in the
patta pass book. The relevant portion of Rule 4 provides thus:
"4. Procedure on receipt of application or information. - (1) On
receipt of the application or information, the Tahsildar shall make
an entry in the "Register of Applications Received" in the order
of receipt in Form III. The Register shall be maintained villagewise.
(2) On the basis of the information furnished in the application
and as available in the existing land records or obtained otherwise,
the Tahsildar shall cause to be served or despatched, under
certificate of posting, to the persons having interest on the land a
notice in Form IV calling upon them to make representation either
orally, or in writing at a specific place on a specified date which
shall be not less than fifteen days and forty days later than the
date of receipt of the application or information.
(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar shall conduct a summary
enquiry. At the enquiry, on consideration of age, literacy and
occupation, the Tahsildar may permit an authorised agent of the
owner to appear on his behalf to supplement whatever the owner
has to state orally or in writing. No legal practitioner in his
professional capacity shall be allowed to represent any party at
such an enquiry. There shall not be adjournment of the enquiry
not more than twice and that adjournment shall be granted only
on application made by the parties requesting for adjournment.
Reasons for granting or refusing the adjournment shall be recorded
by the Tahsildar in writing.
(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute
concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
or issues are raised before him which impinge on personal
laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do
not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the
concerned parties to obtain order on the ownership from a
competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing
the entries as already recorded and existing in the various
revenue records."
(Emphasis supplied)
In terms of Rule 4(4), the Tahsildar upon being satisfied that a
dispute concerning the ownership of patta is already pending in a court
or any issue that is raised before him impinges on personal or laws of
succession shall direct the concerned parties to obtain an "order of
ownership" from a competent civil court having jurisdiction and
accordingly change the entries recorded in various revenue records.
19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered
to adjudicate upon a 'title dispute'. A combined reading of Section 14
and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to
ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, the
correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having
competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of
the decree of the civil court upon adjudication.
20. In the present case, Government Order dated 17 August 2004
revoked the powers of rectification of defects in updating of registry
cases conferred upon the Tahsildar by Government Order no 921 dated
15 August 2001. Instead, Government Order dated 17 August 2004
empowered the DRO to cure any defects occurring in the land registry
after enquiry. In the present case, the first respondent by an application
dated 7 September 2015 approached the DRO for change of patta in
respect of the disputed lands. The DRO issued summons to the appellant
to prove its legal ownership and possession. By an order dated 28
December 2015, the DRO solely relied on the report of the Revenue
Divisional Officer and ordered deletion of the appellant's name from the
land records and replaced it with first respondent's name. The revenue
officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title. A dispute with respect
to the title of land is a mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be
raised before a competent civil court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
21. The narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment makes
it clear that on 26 February 1964, the State of Tamil Nadu executed a
deed of assignment in favour of WSIL. The deed of assignment
specifically records that the lands vested in the State of Tamil Nadu free
of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. The entire case of the
first respondent, was founded on an alleged sale deed of 9 October
1929, 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 the
sale deed nor the terms of the alleged oral lease have been produced in
the course of the proceedings. Once the lands were acquired by the
State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claim of the first respondent would
stand extinguished. The purpose of the Government Order dated 17
August 2004, is to enable the DRO to rectify the defects in the land
registry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in an exercise
of investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting the first
respondent with the appellant in the land records. The learned Single
Judge was correct in holding that the DRO in the guise of acting in
accordance with the said Government Order, wrongly adjudicated upon
the question of title which was beyond jurisdiction.
22. The first respondent raised an argument before the Division
Bench of the High Court that on 26 February 1964, the disputed land
was acquired by the State Government and assigned in favour of WSIL
but in 1964 itself, the land thereafter was re-conveyed to the State
Government. This submission which has been recorded in paragraph 36
of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is in itself
sufficient to displace the case of the first respondent. Once the first
respondent has accepted the fact of the acquisition of the lands by the
State Government, clearly then, the first respondent would have no
subsisting interest in the land. As a result, the first respondent did not
have any locus to pursue the application before the DRO for correction
of land records.
23. For the reasons above, we come to the conclusion that the
view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal is
unsustainable and we accordingly set aside the judgment and order of
the Division Bench dated 22 December 2016. In consequence, the order
of the DRO dated 28 December 2015 is set aside and the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is restored. The appeals shall accordingly stand
allowed in the above terms. We however clarify that the Court in the
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.
R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
present proceedings has had no occasion to make any observation on
the merits of the show cause notice which has been issued by the State
of Tamil Nadu to WSIL for resumption of the lands. We keep open all
the rights and contentions of the parties in that regard.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1906 of 2017 In Civil Appeal
No 1319 of 2017
24. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and
1319 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.
Divya Pandey
Matters disposed of.