1. Dispute over title and possession of land claimed as ryoti land but recorded as a water tank under the Acts of 1908 and 1948. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
SALEM MUNICIPALITY – Appellant(s)
Versus
P.KUMAR & ORS. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.9-11 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.12-14 OF 2014
Decided On : 15-11-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
No ryotwari patta can be issued for tank or any community land vested in Government.
Headnote:(a) Property law – Nature of land – Section 51, Act, 1908 – Annual leases for a period of 8 months from November to June – Excluding the period of submergence – Area recorded as tank in revenue records from 1950 to 1995 – Held, land formed part of the tank. (Para 25)
(b) Act, 1948 – Section 3, 11 and 14-A – Land in dispute forming part of tank – Not ryoti land – Plaintiff or his redecessor in interest could not be said to be ‘ryot’ holding ‘ryoti’ land – Vesting of such land is automatic – No ryotwari patta can be issued for such lands. (Para 27, 30, 35, 36)
(1985) 4 SCC 10; (2017) 2 SCC 69 – Referred
(c) Property law – Adverse possession – Leases for 8 months in a year – Possession not contiguous – Even vendor of plaintiff could not have possession after 1951 when the land vested in Government – Entries in remarks column showing neither ownership nor tenancy – Plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession. (Para 38)
1970 RN 16 (Supreme Court) – Relied upon
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Presumption of continuity of any fact once shown to have prevailed – Instantly no evidence to show that plaintiff’s vendor was in possession on the date of abolition and thereafter plaintiff remained in possession at any point of time – No presumption in favour of plaintiff can be raised. (Para 44)
1970 RN 16 (Supreme Court) – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Initially, lease was granted in favour of S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar on 19.11.1940 by the erstwhile Zamindar – Ms.Gnanambal. It was from the month of November 1940 to the month of June 1941.
Similar leases had been granted on 19.11.1942 in 1943 and 1946.
Each of lease had been granted for eight months, each year continued from November to June next year, to expire before the commencement of rains in July as the land used to be submerged as it was situated in Chinneri Bund side.
Plaintiff’s predecessor in title, continued in possession of the land when the Act called the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 came into force on 19.4.1949, Thereafter, the entire Pallapatti village vested in the State. Pursuant thereto, the possession of the entire village was taken over by the Government, which included the disputed land also.
The original plaintiff –late P.C. Pachiappan purchased 4.91 acres of land from S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar. The suits are with respect to said land.
Late Vijayaranga Mudaliar had applied for a grant of Ryotwari Patta under section 11 of the Act of 1948. The prayer was rejected. P.C. Pachiappan applied for grant of Ryotwari patta of the newly carved out Survey No.163 corresponding to old survey No. 779. Prayer for grant of Ryotwari patta of the disputed land was rejected.
A second application for ryotwari patta moved by Pachiappan was rejected. Review application filed by Pachiappan was also rejected.
Pachiappan again for the third time applied for issuance of patta on 21.6.1982. That application was ultimately rejected.
On 23.2.1984 the Transport Department of the State Government handed over Survey No.163 admeasuring 24.62 acres to Salem Municipality for construction of a new bus stand. Pachiappan had filed a civil suit on 20.12.1984 registered as O.S.34 of 1985 in the Court of District Munsiff of Salem against the State of Tamil Nadu and M/s. Anna Transport Corporation for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 4.91 acres of the land, out of survey No.163.
Yet another civil suit was filed by the same plaintiff as against Salem Municipality alone for declaration and injunction on 22.12.1989.
Thereafter, the fourth application was filed for obtaining ryotwari patta by Pachiappan on 26.3.1992. He had filed yet another writ petition No.3932/1992 for restraining the respondents from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
In Writ Petition No.5642/1992 he prayed that respondent may be directed to consider an application for grant of ryotwari patta. However, both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.
Third suit O.S.No.342/1996 (348/95) (renumbered as 2066/96) was filed as against Salem Municipality, Anna Transport Corporation and State of Tamil Nadu.
By virtue of the various leases granted to S.Vijayaranga Mudaliar, he became entitled to obtain ryotwari patta. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property in 1951 which culminated into a sale on 29.9.1952. The suit property never formed part of the communal land of Achuvan Eri or its tank bund. Further, the extent of the Achuvan Eri as per the records is only 15.00 acres. The Plaintiff had remained in actual possession and enjoyment of suit property. In the year 1982, Forest Department attempted to commit a trespass in the suit property and put up a nursery. The plaintiff objected and obtained the stay orders from the Government of Tamil Nadu against trespass. The Forest Department withdrew and was restrained from further work. The plaintiff also filed applications for grant of ryotwari patta in his favour and his predecessor in interest since 1940 onwards had prescribed his title by virtue of adverse possession also.
The cause of action arose in the year 1940, thereafter in 1952, when the sale deed was executed and again in the year 1984. Besides declaration and injunction, prayer was also made for demarcation of the property in question.
After the restoration of the suit of 1985, three suits were decided vide common judgment and decree dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Trial Court, Additional District Munsif of Salem. The suit was decreed on 27.4.2000. The appeals were allowed by the First Appellate Court i.e., First Additional District Court, Salem vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2004. Aggrieved thereby, three-second appeals, which were preferred, have been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree thereby restoring that of the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT: S.114
TAMIL NADU ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT: S.1(4), S.11, S.14(a), S.64
TAMIL NADU ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT: S.1(4), S.11, S.14(a), S.64
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the land was ryoti land entitling the holder to ryotwari patta or a water body vested in the State, and whether possession was established. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. The land was a water tank, excluding it from the definition of ryoti land and prohibiting the grant of ryotwari patta under statutory provisions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
4. Beds and bunds of tanks are not ryoti land; thus, no ryotwari patta can be granted, and such lands vest automatically in the State. (Para 26 , 27 , 36 )
5. Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and suits dismissed with costs imposed on the respondent. (Para 51 , 52 )
6. Does the definition of ryoti land include the beds and bunds of tanks?
No. Under Section 3(16) of the Act of 1908, ryoti land is defined as cultivable land in an estate but specifically excludes beds and bunds of tanks and irrigation channels. (Para 26 , 27 )
7. What happens to communal lands and tanks upon the notification of the Act of 1948?
Under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1948, all communal lands, porambokes, and tanks, including private tanks and irrigation works, stand transferred to and vest in the Government, free of all encumbrances. (Para 28 )
8. Can a ryotwari patta be granted for a private tank or oorani?
No. Section 14-A of the Act of 1948 explicitly prohibits the grant of ryotwari patta for any private tank or oorani, and any such patta granted before the 1974 amendment stands cancelled. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
9. Can continuous possession be established for land that is periodically submerged as part of a water tank?
No. Land that is submerged during rainy seasons is not capable of being possessed continuously, and temporary leases for non-rainy months do not confer permanent title or continuous possession. (Para 38 )
10. Does a sale deed confer title if the vendor had no legal right or title to the land?
No. If the vendor had no title because the land was vested in the State, the purchaser cannot derive any right, title, or interest from the vendor. (Para 20 , 49 )
ORDER
1. The Salem Municipality and State of Tamil Nadu and others are in appeals aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 8.12.2010 thereby deciding three Second Appeals by the common judgment and order reversing the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court of dismissal of the suits and restoring that of the Trial Court.
2. It was claimed by the plaintiff that initially, the lease was granted in favour of S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar on 19.11.1940 by the erstwhile Zamindar – Ms.Gnanambal. It was from the month of November 1940 to the month of June 1941.
3. Similar leases had been granted on 19.11.1942 in 1943 and 1946. In the lease deed area was described as “Chinneri Tank Bund Side -Waste dry” and “Chinneri Tank Bund Upper-dry”.
4. It is significant that each of lease had been granted for eight months, each year continued from November to June next year, to expire before the commencement of rains in July as the land used to be submerged as it was situated in Chinneri Bund side.
5. It was claimed by the plaintiff that his predecessor in title, continued in possession of the land when the Act called the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (in short “the Act of 1948”) came into force. The Act was published on 19.4.1949. Sections 1,2,4,5,7,8 58-A,62,67 68 came into force on 19.4.1949, as provided under Section 1(4) of the Act of 1948. The State Government enforced the other Sections on the appointed date i.e. 19.12.1950. Thereafter, the entire Pallapatti village vested in the State as notified under the Act of 1948. Pursuant thereto, the possession of the entire village was taken over by the Government, which included the disputed land also, vide possession receipt dated 12.1.1951.
6. The original plaintiff –late P.C. Pachiappan purchased 4.91 acres of land from S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar. The suits are with respect to said land.
7. It transpires that late Vijayaranga Mudaliar had applied for a grant of Ryotwari Patta under section 11 of the Act of 1948. The prayer was rejected on the ground that land was not ryoti land and it was recorded as community land. Thereafter, settlement in the area was undertaken and was finally notified in the Gazette dated 21.12.1963. Thereafter, P.C. Pachiappan applied under section 11 of the Act of 1948 for grant of Ryotwari patta of the newly carved out Survey No.163 corresponding to old survey No. 779. Prayer for grant of Ryotwari patta of the disputed land was rejected vide order 5.11.1968 passed in DOS 739/68 (F-2) by Assistant Settlement Officers KDIS No. 737/1968. As recorded in the survey land register, Exhibit B-2, prepared in the survey and settlement in 1959, the total area of the land 163 = 779 was 24.62 acres, recorded as Achuvan Eri (lake). Hence, it could not have been allotted.
8. A second application for ryotwari patta moved by Pachiappan was rejected as per government Order dated 11.5.1971. Review application was filed by Pachiappan. It was also rejected vide order dated 7.5.1973 on the ground that records of rights made it apparent that disputed land formed part of ‘Achuvaneri' which is IV class irrigation source with wet ayacut registered under it and that it is retained as the tank in the interest of ayacutdars under it. It was also observed that the entire area comes into submergence and the land in question forms part of the irrigation tank.
9. Unfettered by the previous two rejections, Pachiappan again for the third time applied for issuance of patta on 21.6.1982. That application was ultimately rejected vide Ex. P-5 on 9.5.1984.
10. On 23.2.1984, by virtue of the Office Memorandum 255, the Transport Department of the State Government handed over Survey No.163 admeasuring 24.62 acres to Salem Municipality for construction of a new bus stand. Pachiappan had filed a civil suit on 20.12.1984 registered as O.S.34 of 1985 in the Court of District Munsiff of Salem against the State of Tamil Nadu and
