S. Gururaj vs The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner Of Land Administration
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1146
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13629 OF 2026
S. GURURAJ … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/
COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION
AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13630 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13631 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. The Civil Appeals assail the Orders dated 11.07.2024 and 02.07.2025
in Writ Petition No. 8661 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras. Civil Appeal Nos. 13630 and 13631 of 2026 were filed by Tamil Nadu
Mercantile Bank Limited, Valasaravakkam Branch, Chennai. S. Gururaj, the
flat buyer, filed Civil Appeal No. 13629 of 2026.
Signature Not Verified
2. The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
Digitally signed by
LOKESH ARORA
Date: 2026.10.16
18:15:09 IST
Reason:
1948 (“Act, 1948”) provides for the repeal of the permanent settlement. It also
provides for the acquisition of landholders’ rights in permanently settled and
1
certain other estates in the erstwhile Province of Madras, now the State of
Tamil Nadu, and for the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such estates.
The Act, 1948, while doing away with the intermediary system in land
regulation and administration, contemplated recognising a ryot’s entitlement
to protection of possession and the grant of a ryotwari patta for ryoti land .
1
3. “ Ryot land ” means cultivable land in an estate other than private land,
but does not include:
a. beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation
channels;
b. threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village sites and other lands situated in
any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers;
c. lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates
of rent if granted before passing of this Act or free or rent if granted after
that date, so long as the service tenure subsists.
Therefore, the extended definition of Ryoti land means entirable lands
in an estate by a Ryot who holds it for agriculture on condition of paying rent
2
to the landholder which is legally due other than private land. The
consideration relates to the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Respondent No. 2 for
Survey No. 572, to an extent of 0.72 acres, for land locally known as
“ Kanakkan Pillai Kuttai ”.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu, through Amendment Act No. 49 of 1974,
introduced Section 14-A into the principal Act, which reads as under:
1 th
P Ramanatha Aiyar: Advanced Law Lexicon , 7 Edition, Vol. 4, Pp. 5657.
2
State of T.N. v. His Holiness Srilla Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Adheenakaratha and
Others, (1997) 9 SCC 313.
2
“ 14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of
private tank or oorani ¾ (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in
respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private
bank or oorani under this Act before the date of publication of
the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for the
purpose of compensation under this Act, the private tank or
oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither
the landlord nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta
under this Act.”
5. The controversy in the Civil Appeals turns on the District
Administration's will and determination to give effect to the letter and spirit
of Section 14-A of the Act, 1948.
6. The subject matter of the Civil Appeals comprises 0.72 acres out of 1.68
acres in Survey No. 572, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk (now
under Avadi Taluk), Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. The Resurvey and
Resettlement (RSR) ‘A’ Register of 1911 records it as Government Poramboke -
Kanakkan Kuttai . Title Deed (T.D.) No. 300 was issued in favour of Sri T.N.
Venugopal Pillai for a Minor Inam, an adjacent parcel of land to the subject
matter. The subject matter was treated as an appurtenance to the Inam land
and known as Kanakku Pillai Kuttai .
7. The detailed narrative in the Revenue Records regarding the origin and
continuity of the subject matter is not particularly relevant either to
considering the challenge to the impugned Order or to disposing of the Civil
Appeals. On 28.08.1980, the heirs of the late Venugopal Pillai executed a Sale
Deed for 0.50 acres of the subject matter in favour of R. Kandhasamy Pillai.
On 02.09.1988, A. Palanichamy Nadar purchased 0.22 acres from R.
3
Kandhasamy Pillai via Sale Deed No. 6138/1988 and an additional 0.50 acres
via Sale Deed No. 6139/1988 in Survey No. 572. Palanichamy Nadar claims
ownership and possession of 0.72 acres in the subject matter of the Appeals.
On 15.11.1999, Palanichamy Nadar died intestate. His legal heirs, on
13.12.2004, executed registered Sale Deed documents Nos. 14089 and 14090
th
of 2004, relinquishing the 6/7 share in favour of P. Ramadoss. Thus, P.
Ramadoss is the last registered holder of the subject matter. P. Ramadoss was
running Sree Jayasakthi Timber Mart. On 24.05.2005, P. Ramadoss was
granted Building Permit No. C 3031 by Avadi Municipality. The Appellants
also relied on the fact that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
delineated Survey No. 572 as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. It is important to
note that on 18.10.2010, for the first time, P. Ramadoss filed a petition for the
grant of Ryotwari Patta before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur (“DRO,
Tiruvallur”). The DRO, Tiruvallur, vide Order R.C. No. 25714/2010/B1 dated
21.01.2011, granted Ryotwari Patta to P. Ramadoss. To appreciate the
controversy between the parties, it is necessary to accept the consideration
and conclusion recorded by the DRO, Tiruvallur, hereinunder:-
“I have carefully considered the arguments and perused the
connected records. At the outset, I must mention here that the
village map clearly reveals that there is no Kuttai in S.No. 572
and the Kuttai is situated only in S.No. 360 which is situated
North-east of the suit land. As rightly pointed out by the
Advocate it is the paramount duty of the authorities to look
into the user of land to which it is put on ground and not by
the wrong entries in and old records. As rightly contended by
the Advocate for the claimant every citizen has got a right to
call upon the Government to discharge its duties. In Murugan
Versus United states it is said:
“The vast expansion of this field of administrative
regulation in response to the pressure of social needs is
made paddiable under our system by adherence to the
basic principles that the legislature shall approximately
determine the standards of administrative action and
that in judicial citizen shall be protected by the
4
rudimentary requirements of fair play. These demands
are fair and open hearing for essential, alike to the legal
validity of administrative regulations and to
maintenance of public confidence in the value and
soundness of the important Governmental process.
Such a hearing has been described as an unexercisable
safeguarded.”
From an entire review of the position based on facts and
evidence D records; I have no other alternative excepting to
hold that the claim land was never a Kuttai Poramboke but
only a ryoti land covered by T.D. No. 300 and wrongly
allowed to continue as Kuttai Poramboke. Therefore, under
the powers delegated to me under G.O.Ms. No. 1300,
Revenue Department, dated 03.10.1971, read with G.O.Ms.
No. 370, Commercial Taxes, Religious Endowments
Department, dated 03.10.1974. I allow a ryotwari patta in
favour of Thiru. P. Ramadoss, son of S.A. Palanichamy, in
respect of 72 cents out of 1.68 acres in S. No. 572 of
Thirumullaivoyal in Ambathur Taluk of Tiruvallur District. In
the result, the claim succeeds.”
8. The above Order appears to result in consequential amendments to the
Town Survey Land Register, specifically Survey No. 572/2 (T.S. No. 4/2, Block
84, Ward D). P. Ramadoss mortgaged 0.72 acres to Tamil Nadu Mercantile
Bank Limited (TMB), Valasaravakkam Branch/Appellant in Civil Appeal
Nos.13630 and 13631 of 2026, to secure credit facilities of Rs. 3.40 Crores.
9. P. Ramadoss executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 06.12.2012
for 0.22 acres in T.S. No. 4/2 in favour of his wife, R. Uma. On 12.08.2013,
his wife executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of B.
Lakshminarasimhan, proprietor of M/s. MVM Builders & Promoters. Avadi
Municipality approved subdivision building plans to erect 20 residential flats
across four blocks on the 0.22 acres released in favour of R. Uma. The builder
constructed 20 apartments and sold them to individual flat buyers, along with
an undivided share in Survey No. 572/2. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
13629 of 2026 is the flat owner.
5
10. Aggrieved by the grant of the Ryotwari Patta, a third-party objector filed
a Petition on 10.02.2014 before the Additional Chief Secretary cum
Commissioner, Land Administration, challenging the Order dated 21.01.2011
of the DRO, Tiruvallur. P. Ramadoss, the Pattadar, was impleaded as a
respondent in the proceedings before the Commissioner of Land
Administration (“CLA”). On 26.12.2019, the CLA allowed the Petition and set
aside the Ryotwari Patta dated 21.01.2011 in favour of P. Ramadoss. The
findings are summarised as follows:
A. On Jurisdiction and Limitation: The DRO, Tiruvallur granted
Ryotwari Patta under G.O. Ms. No. 1300 (Revenue Department) dated
30.04.1971, read with G.O. Ms. No. 370 (Commercial Taxes & Religious
Endowments Department) dated 03.10.1974. The statutory time limits for
entertaining applications under these Government Orders expired on
30.06.1975 and 31.03.1977, respectively. Under the relevant Inam and Estate
Abolition Acts (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and Act 26 of 1948), the limitation
periods ended on 31.03.1977 and 30.08.1987, respectively. The Respondent
P. Ramadoss filed his Application only on 18.10.2010, several decades after
the limitation periods had expired. Consequently, the DRO, Tiruvallur, had
neither jurisdiction nor authority to entertain the Petition or grant Patta.
B. Classification: As per the Resettlement Register (RSR / 1911 Register),
S.No. 572 (1.68 acres) is recorded as " Government Poramboke Kanakkan
Kuttai ". As per the Town Survey 'A' Register, the land in Ward D, Block 84,
T.S. No. 4, measuring 6800 sq. meters, is recorded as “ Sarkar Poramboke –
Kanakkan Pillai Kuttai ”. Although a ground inspection found the pond no
6
longer visible due to encroachment, the land remains legally an objectionable
watercourse poramboke dedicated to public and cattle use. Granting Patta
over watercourse land was strictly illegal and contrary to established law.
C. On Handling of Official Files: The then DRO, Tiruvallur, issued the
Order dated 21.01.2011 without calling for any reports or records from the
jurisdictional Tahsildar. Verification of the 2010 Personal Register of the
dealing B1 Assistant confirmed that the current number 25714 was never
entered in that seat. The Distribution Register and Tapal Register showed that
the current number 25714 had been assigned to the F Section (F3) for land
acquisition matters. The actual NOC/Patta Application filed by P. Ramadoss
on 18.10.2010 bore file number 35714/2010, which the DRO deliberately
misrepresented as 25714/2010 in the proceedings. File No. 35714/2010 was
untraceable, contained no entry regarding its closure or disposal, and was
never deposited in the Collectorate Record Room, thereby proving that the
Order was not passed in a bona fide officiating capacity.
D. On Revenue Staff: Subordinate Revenue officials, including the
Additional Personal Assistant (Land) to the District Collector, the Ambattur
Tahsildar, the Section Head Clerk, the B1 Assistant, and the Taluk Survey
staff, failed to object to the grant of Patta over an objectionable watercourse.
They also failed to alert higher Authorities, such as the District Collector, the
Director of Survey and Settlement, or the CLA, thereby leaving the fraudulent
transaction concealed until a Public Welfare Body intervened.
E. Subdivision and Creation of Third-Party Rights: Following the DRO’s
2011 Order, S.No. 572 was irregularly subdivided into:
7
i. S.No. 572/1 (900 sq. m / 0.09.0 Ha): Kanakkankuttai (presently
Manikandapuram Main Road).
ii. S.No. 572/2 (2915 sq. m / 0.29.0 Ha): Patta No. 6558 in favour of P.
Ramadoss, where an apartment building, MVM Aparajithapuri, was
constructed on 900 sq. m, an old dilapidated building occupied 130
sq. m, and 1885 sq. m remained vacant.
iii. S.No. 572/3 (2985 sq. m / 0.30.0 Ha): Kanakkankuttai.
The District Administration’s inaction allowed the illegal construction of
multi-storey apartments and the subsequent sale of flats to innocent third-
party purchasers who were kept unaware of the fraudulent title.
F. Cancellation of Order & Patta: The Order of the then DRO, Tiruvallur
(Rc. No. 25714/2010/B1) dated 21.01.2011, and the consequential Patta
issued to P. Ramadoss were cancelled. The District Collector was directed to
resume and restore the land as Government poramboke , make the necessary
entries in the Prohibitory Order Book (POB) , and report compliance within 15
days.
G. Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings: The District Collector was
directed to initiate severe disciplinary action and file criminal cases within 15
days against the then DRO, Tiruvallur, all subordinate officials involved, and
any other officials found complicit in facilitating the fraud.
11. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, the Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
13630 and 13631 of 2026, filed Writ Petition No. 8661 of 2020 challenging
the Order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the CLA. The impugned Order
8
dismissed the Writ Petition. The summary of the conclusions is stated
hereunder: -
A. The High Court adopted the factual and legal conclusions recorded in
paragraph 15 of the Commissioner of Land Administration Order dated
26.12.2019, which characterise the 2011 DRO, Tiruvallur grant of patta as a
product of administrative fraud.
B. The land was classified as " Kanakkankuttai " before and throughout the
settlement proceedings under the Act, 1948. Communal water bodies vest in
the State free from all encumbrances and cannot be granted on patta to either
ryots or erstwhile landholders.
C. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948 expressly bars the grant of patta even in
respect of private tanks or ooranis and mandates the cancellation of any patta
erroneously or mistakenly issued over such lands. The DRO, Tiruvallur, had
no authority to reclassify communal poramboke land into ryoti land. The
power of reclassification under Section 20-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land
Act, 1908, was extinguished upon its repeal by the Act, 1948.
D. That G.O.Ms. No. 1300 dated 30.04.1971 applied strictly to ryoti lands
in continuous occupation and could never authorise regularisation or grant
of patta for water bodies.
E. That Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank is a mere mortgagee claiming under
P. Ramadoss. Because P. Ramadoss procured the patta by fraud over
Government watercourse land, the mortgage created no valid charge against
the State. Since the Bank’s mortgagor had no marketable title, hearing the
9
Bank would have been an empty formality that could not alter the legal
character of a public water body.
F. The Court directed the District Administration to evict all occupants,
demolish all unauthorised residential and commercial structures across the
entire 1.68 acres of Survey No. 572, and restore the water body within 16
weeks.
G. The Court ordered the District Collector, Tiruvallur, to inquire into the
fraudulent issuance of the 2011 Patta, initiate disciplinary and criminal
proceedings against all responsible officials, bar them from key posts, and
place them under surveillance by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department.
H. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition while preserving the Bank’s
statutory liberty to proceed against the borrower/mortgagor under SARFAESI
and to initiate criminal proceedings, excluding the period of writ pendency
from limitation under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
12. Accordingly, the flat owner and Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited
have filed Civil Appeal Nos. 13629-13631 of 2026, challenging the impugned
Order.
13. We have heard Mr. T. Raja, learned Senior Counsel and Mr K.S.
Mahadevan, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. Jayasree
Narasimhan, Counsel for the Respondents.
14. Counsel for the Appellants argue that the impugned Order assumes
that the subject matter of the Civil Appeals is a tank. This finding is baseless,
and the existence of the tank is recorded by reference to an Order passed by
10
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2018. According to him, the Court
made no such finding in that Writ Petition. The Chennai Metropolitan
Authority has shown the subject land as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. The zonal
development plan conclusively proves that the subject land is ryotwari land
and not a water body. The DRO, Tiruvallur, is competent under G.O.Ms.
No.1300 dated 30.04.1971 read with G.O.Ms. No.370 dated 03.10.1974, to
entertain a petition for the grant of Ryotwari patta. The Commissioner of Land
Administration did not hear the bank, the flat owners, or any bona fide
purchasers of land. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, is not attracted to the
circumstances of the case.
15. Advocate Jayasree Narasimhan argues that the earliest resurvey and
settlement record of 1911 described the subject matter as “ Government
Poramboke – Kanakkam Kuttai ”. The Registered Deed inter se parties does not
affect the rights possessed under the Act, 1948, by the Government/Local
Bodies. The DRO, Tiruvallur, exercised jurisdiction not available to him.
Without prejudice to the first contention, it is argued that the DRO, Tiruvallur,
acted beyond the record. The survey and settlement operations, concluded
long ago by the grant of ryotwari pattas, were followed by renewed efforts as
late as 2010 to secure a ryotwari patta with urbanisation. The Revenue Officer
does not have jurisdiction to grant a patta for non-ryoti land, i.e., communal
land, Government Poramboke , bank, forest, etc. After examining the record,
the CLA rightly set aside the patta dated 21.01.2011. The Assignee/P.
Ramadoss did not challenge the CLA Order dated 26.12.2019, but as
Mortgagee, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited questioned it in Writ Petition
11
No. 8661 of 2020. The impugned Order rejected the challenge for valid and
available reasons. To protect non-ryoti land from being granted as ryotwari
pattas, the State Legislature enacted Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, and
nullified pattas granted prior to the amendment for private land or oorani.
Section 14-A further deems that, for private land or oorani, the landholder or
any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act, 1948. Therefore,
the Government's development work is for the restoration of a water body,
and no exception can be made.
16. We have perused the record, including the latest Report dated
09.10.2026, filed by the District Collector, Tiruvallur. The said Report is made
part of this Judgment.
17. The Appellant takes exception to the Order dated 26.12.2019 on the
ground that no Authority has adjudicated that the subject matter of the
Appeal is a tank. In our considered view, this contention appears untenable
because the Act, 1948 does not require adjudication to protect communal
Government Poramboke , etc. Simply put, the Ryotiwari tenures under the Act,
1948 apply to Ryoti land covered by the said Act. The inquiry in this behalf
determines the nature of the land, the type of enjoyment, the period of
enjoyment, and the entitlement to grant of patta.
3
18. In Salem Municipality v. P. Kumar and Others , this Court considered
the definitions under Sections 3(15), 3(16) and 14-A(1) of the Act, 1948. The
background in the Judgment concerns a tank and tank bund. Between 1940
and 1946, Zamindar Ganambal granted multiple seasonal 8-month leases
3
(2019) 13 SCC 307.
12
(November–June) for the “Chinneri Tank Bund” dry wasteland to S.
Vijayaranga Mudaliar, who held possession before the July monsoon
submergence. Following the Act, 1948, the land vested in the State, and the
Government took possession on 12.01.1951. Despite Mudaliar's eligibility for
a Ryotwari Patta under Section 11 of the Act, 1948, the plaintiff , P.C.
Pachiappan, purchased the 4.91-acre suit property on 29.09.1952. The
Plaintiff's Applications for a Ryotwari Patta were rejected because the land
constitutes "Achuvan Eri", i.e., a Class IV irrigation lake, and must be
preserved as a submergible tank for local farmers (ayacutdars). On
23.02.1984, the State Government transferred the entire 24.62-acre area to
the Salem Municipality for a new bus stand. In response, the Plaintiff filed
three successive Suits for declaration of title and injunctions, culminating in
the High Court, where the judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside.
In the above factual background, the following paragraphs are excerpted:
“19. It is apparent from the definition of “ryot” as defined
under Section 3(15), means a person who holds the land for
the purpose of agriculture. It is necessary for such a “ryot” to
hold “ryoti land” in an estate. Ryoti land has been defined in
Section 3(16) as cultivable land in an estate other than private
land but does not include beds and bunds of tanks and of
supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels. Thus, as the
area in question formed part of the tank it was clearly not
ryoti land as per the said definition in Section 3(16). As such,
the predecessor-in-interest S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar or the
plaintiff could not be said to be “ryot” holding “ryoti” land.
xxx xxx xxx
28. Section 14-A(1) makes it clear that notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be
granted in respect of any private tank or ooranies. Even if any
patta has been granted the same shall stand cancelled and
the land of the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be
land of neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled
to ryotwari patta under the Act.
29. It is apparent from the conjoint reading of the provisions
contained in Sections 3(15) and 3(16) of the 1908 Act and the
provisions contained in Sections 3, 11 and 14-A of the 1948
Act that the land of the tank is not “ryoti land” as such no
rights of “ryot” could accrue in the person by holding the land
13
on temporary arrangement of lease granted for 8 months in a
year when water was not there in the tanks. Such bodies are
protected by virtue of the aforesaid provisions carved out
under the Acts of 1908 and 1948. The amendment made in
1974 in Section 14-A makes it clear that even if any ryot patta
has been granted to any incumbent even with respect to
private tank or ooranies, that shall be inoperative and stand
cancelled.”
18.1 Finally, it was held that the Revenue entries show that the entire area
of 24.62 acres had been recorded as a tank continuously from 1950 to 1995.
Since the land formed part of a tank reserved for common use, no right
accrued to the plaintiff to claim Ryotwari Patta, as his predecessor was not a
Ryot and the disputed land was not Ryotwari land. The vendor did not hold
the land for 12 consecutive years, so no right, title, or interest accrued to the
Vendor or the Plaintiff.
19. Therefore, non-Ryoti lands do not fall within the scope of granting a
patta under the Act, 1948. Whenever a dispute arises over entitlement to a
patta , the nature of the land is determined by appreciating entries in the
earliest Revenue Records, including Survey and Settlement Records. The
Appellants do not contend that the Revenue Records show the subject matter
as Ryoti land during the Survey and Settlement operation or the
contemporaneous faslis . Since the Appellants claim a Ryotwari patta, they
must establish the ingredients for the land to be termed Ryoti land and that
P. Ramadoss is entitled to a Ryotwari Patta. Accordingly, the first objection to
the impugned Orders is rejected.
20. It is argued that, under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
Act, 1971 (“Act, 1971”), the urban area development plan for the land has
been notified as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. Therefore, the basis of the
14
Commissioner's Order or the Writ Court’s Order is completely effaced, and
consequently the cancellation of the Ryotwari Patta vide Order dated
26.04.2019 is illegal.
21. The Statement of Objects and Scope of the Acts of 1971 and 1948 is
noted. Therefore, notifying a block of area in the development zone as
commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed residential/mixed-use cannot be
construed as taking away the Government's rights in Poramboke lands,
forests, water bodies/tanks, etc. The said argument does not take into
account that zoning regulations are not confined to a single survey number
but apply when an individual undertakes development activity in the notified
area. The development of a plot conforms to the notified zoning requirement.
Reference to the subject matter being in a mixed residential zone, either in
fact or in law, cannot be treated as effacing the effect of Section 14-A of the
Act, 1948.
22. It is further argued that the CLA did not hear the Mortgagee and the
flat owners while setting aside the Ryotwari Patta. This argument requires
examining whether the CLA heard no one or only the person interested in the
subject matter when passing the Order dated 26.12.2019. The Appellants
claim that P. Ramadoss, who continues to hold an interest in the balance
extent of the subject matter, was heard, and that the flat buyers were not
heard during the pendency of the proceedings before the CLA. The objection
on the ground of denial of opportunity is not available to the Appellants
because the Notice was issued to the person who had the Ryotwari Patta in
his favour and claimed an interest in the property.
15
23. It is argued that the Revenue Records do not record the subject matter
as a water body but instead record it in the names of private individuals. This
argument is far removed from the Revenue extracts on which the CLA passed
the Order dated 26.12.2019. The record filed by the State reinforces that the
subject matter has been classified as a tank/Government Poramboke in the
Revenue Records from the earliest point in time. This ground is equally
untenable and warrants rejection.
24. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, prohibits officers from considering and
granting Ryotwari Patta for non-Ryoti land. The Legislature designed a
prohibitory mechanism to prevent changes in land classification. The said
Section even renders the Order already issued void. That being the statutory
scheme, the DRO, Tiruvallur, without any reason, went beyond the provisions
of the said Act and granted Patta.
25. The above consideration records findings on the Appellants' entitlement
to any relief in the Civil Appeals in relation to the subject matter. Other
circumstances in the matter include the grant of Permit No. C 3031 on
24.05.2005 by the Avadi Municipality for establishing the timber mart; the
revenue department changed the Town Survey Land Register and approved
the subdivision of the subject matter; the Avadi Municipality approved the
building plans for the construction of apartments; and, as per the Report
dated 09.10.2026 of the District Collector, Tiruvallur, the present existence of
apartments is to an extent of 0.22 acres. The impugned Judgment directed
the demolition of the existing structures and the restoration of the water
body.
16
26. In the present case, the Municipal Administration has approved and
sanctioned the building plans. The Revenue, without realising its obligation
under Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, is changing the nature in the Town
Survey Land Records. These permissions/Orders lead a bona fide purchaser
to believe that the subject matter is available and free from any objectionable
use. The Court is constrained to observe that a bona fide purchaser for
consideration looks at the presumptive value of entries and town survey
records while purchasing the property. At the government's convenience, the
nature of the land is changed. The remedies against the developer and the
landowner are independent, but the State and its officers ought not to be
allowed to pass on without paying the price for such willy-nilly felicitation by
the officers of the State.
27. Because of these Orders and Revenue Records, the flat owners have
been led to believe that the Government has no interest under Section 14-A
of the Act, 1948. Therefore, directing the demolition of flats without examining
the hardship of the flat owners and the independent remedies available to
them in law against the owner of the land and the developer of the apartments
would cause irreparable financial injury and throw the families on the streets.
In the circumstances of the case, to ameliorate the possible hardship and,
without committing a breach of Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, we direct the
Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur, to
allot a vacant, commensurate site to the owners of the flats represented by
the Society, preferably within 6 months from today, and thereafter to
undertake the demolition of the constructed area to an extent of 0.22 acres.
17
28. Subject to the above direction, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned Judgment. The development work in the vacant and unoccupied
area may be completed expeditiously without hindrance. The flat owners and
the Appellant Bank are free to avail themselves of the remedies in law against
the developer/Owner/Mortgagor, as the case may be, before the Competent
Civil Court. The State Government is free to initiate or conclude disciplinary
action against the erring Officers for failing to maintain the records and water
bodies.
29. For the above consideration and reasons, the Civil Appeals are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
30. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
..……….…………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
...…………………………J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
October 16, 2026.
18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) DIARY NO. 47662 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd
Rep. by Its Authorized Officer …. PETITIONER
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chennai & Ors …. RESPONDENTS
FILING INDEX
S
No.
PARTICULAR PAGE NO COPIES COURT
FEE
9. Miscellaneous Document 1-2 1 Nill
10.
TOTAL Nill
FILED BY:
JAYASREE NARASIMHAN
Advocate for the Petitioners
CC No- 2601
142, New Lawyers Chambers,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi - 110001
Mobile No.-8826717631
Dated: 09.10.2026
1
FIELD MAP SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IN SURVEY NUMBER 572 OF
THIRUMULLAIVOYAL VILLAGE, AVADI TALUK AND THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.
N
DISTRICT : THIRUVALLUR
TALUK : AVADI
WARD : D
BLOCK : 84
T.SNO : 4
OLD S.NO : 572
E
W
T.S.
S
9.2
32.6
36.8
78.6
BLOCK:8
92.6
572
572
2 572
PDUW
75.2
T.S.
34.6
B ORFN : A
B ORFN : B
572
26.0
26.0
2 PDUW
B ORFN : D
B ORFN : C
34.6
10.6 39.2
14.2 14.1 11.5
89.6
T.S.
T.S.2 T.S. T.S.7 T.S.8
Survey
SI.no
Remarks
Number
Colour
Extent
Physical Status
Remarks
(Hectare/
cent)
The road is being used by the general
Existing Road
.
S.No: 572/1
0.09.00 Hectare(22.0 Cent)
public.
All encroachments have been removed
and the land has been retained as vacant
land(Subject land involved in this case).
2 D .
S.No: 572/2 0.20.00 Hectare (50.0 Cent)
Vacant Land
(Part)
Apartments consisting
2 E . Subject land involved in this case.
S.No: 572/2
20 flats
0.09.00 Hectare(22.0 Cent)
(Part)
All encroachments have been removed
and the land has been retained.
Vacant Land
.
S.No: 572/3 (74.0 Cent)
0.30.00 Hectare
0.20.00 Hectare (50.0 Cent)
The construction was carried out by
A compound wall has
the Avadi Municipal corporation.
been constructed, and
in S.No 572/2(Part) and
one pit has been dug
S.No: 572/2
District Collector
4.
(part) and
0.30.00 Hectare (74.0 Cent)
Thiruvallur
572/3
in S.No 572/3.
2