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 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 restored– Tamil 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 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. 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.