Tamil Nadu must provide alternative site to flat owners before demolishing homes built on protected waterbody land, Supreme Court directs

The dispute concerned 0.72 acres in Survey No. 572, Thirumullaivoyal, recorded in the earliest revenue records as Government poramboke—“Kanakkan Kuttai”.

In 2011, the District Revenue Officer granted P. Ramadoss a ryotwari patta over the land.

Ramadoss mortgaged land to Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, and 20 flats were constructed on 0.22 acres and sold to individual purchasers.

In 2019, the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelled the patta, finding, among other things, that the land was a water body and that the patta had been granted without jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the Bank’s challenge and directed eviction, demolition and restoration of the water body.

The Bank and a flat owner appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether a ryotwari patta could be granted over land recorded as a communal water body/Government poramboke, and whether the DRO’s grant was lawful.

2. Whether the land’s designation as a “Mixed Residential Zone” under planning laws altered the Government’s rights or the statutory protection of the water body.

3. Whether the Commissioner’s decision was invalid because the Bank and flat purchasers were not heard.

4. Whether demolition of the flats should proceed without alternative relief for the purchasers, given the State’s approvals and revenue entries.

Under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, ryotwari patta is available only for qualifying ryoti land; land forming part of a tank or other communal water body is not ryoti land.

Section 14-A prohibits grant of ryotwari patta over a private tank or oorani and provides for cancellation of a patta granted in respect of such land.

In *Salem Municipality v. P. Kumar*, (2019) 13 SCC 307, the Supreme Court held that tank land is not ryoti land and cannot support a claim to ryotwari patta.

A land-use designation under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, does not extinguish the Government’s rights in poramboke or water-body land.

The earliest settlement records classified the disputed land as Government poramboke—Kanakkan Kuttai, and the appellants did not establish that it was ryoti land during settlement or the relevant contemporaneous periods.

Applying Section 14-A and *Salem Municipality*, the Court held that the DRO could not convert non-ryoti water-body land into patta land; the later residential zoning did not change that result.

The notice objection failed because the patta-holder, who had an interest in the land, had been heard; the Bank and flat purchasers could not invalidate the Commissioner’s order on that ground.

However, State and municipal permissions and revenue entries had contributed to the flat purchasers’ bona fide belief that the property was available for development. To avoid imposing the entire hardship on them, the Court directed the State to provide a commensurate vacant site before demolishing the flats.

It modified the demolition relief: the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector, Tiruvallur, were directed to allot the flat owners represented by the Society a commensurate vacant site, preferably within six months, and thereafter demolish the construction on 0.22 acres.

The appellants remained free to pursue remedies against the developer, owner or mortgagor; no order as to costs was made.