M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusR. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.

                        [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1161                              1161


           M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION                              A
                    COMPANY LIMITED
                                  v.
                R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No 1318 of 2017)                         B
                        FEBRUARY 06, 2020
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
                 AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
       Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 – ss.10 and 14 – State
                                                                          C
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           D
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
                                                                          E
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         F
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
                                                                          G
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
                                                                          H
                                1161
1162            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B
       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
 C           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
 D     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
 E     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]
 F
              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
 G     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
 H     Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for the
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                   1163
                   R. PERUMALSWAMY

procedure to be adopted to deal with enquiries with respect to        A
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
                                                                      B
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       C
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.
                                                                      D
The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of
the 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 executed
a deed of assignment in favour of WSIL. The deed of assignment
specifically records that the lands vested in the State of Tamil      E
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        F
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       G
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.   H
1164             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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]
 B           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
 C
             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,
 D     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,
 E     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.
 F
              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
 G     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
 H       “DRO”
         M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                      1165
    R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      2. WS Industries (India) Ltd4, the appellant in Civil Appeal No       A
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
                                                                            B
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      C
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          D
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    E
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.   F
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       G
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                                                                 H
1166            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B
       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
 C     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.
 D
               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
 E     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
 F     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:
 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 2.30.0
             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
 H
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                            1167
 R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      name of the applicant Thiru R. Perumalswamy S/o (late) Thiru             A
      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       B
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        C
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   D
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           E
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       F
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           G
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.                                   H
1168            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B           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.
 C           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
 D     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
 E     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
 F     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
 G     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
 H
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                           1169
 R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, on 26 February           A
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
                                                                              B
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     C
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
                                                                              D
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.                                                       E
       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           F
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        G
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        H
1170             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B
       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
 C     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
 D     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
 E     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
 F     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
 G     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
 H
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                           1171
 R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

instructions not to appear in the proceedings. We may note that the           A
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.     B
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       C
      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,       D
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         E
      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            F
      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
                                                                              G
      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.
                                                                              H
1172             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A            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            (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
 C            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
 D     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
 E     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:
 F            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
 G
              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
 H     and its officials regarding entries made in the patta pass book. The proviso
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                           1173
 R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

does not prevent parties from filing suits against rival claimants or         A
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.
                                                                              B
       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:
                                                                              C
      “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 village-
      wise.
                                                                              D
      (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     E
      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         F
      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          G
      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
                                                                              H
1174             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B
             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
 C     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
 D     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
 E     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
 F     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
 G     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.
 H
      M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v.                           1175
 R. PERUMALSWAMY [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       21. The narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment makes   A
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
                                                                              B
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              C
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
                                                                              D
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          E
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            F
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      G
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
                                                                              H
1176            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B     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.
 C

       Divya Pandey                                            Matters disposed of.




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H