Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 944

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
R. Perumalswamy & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 1318 and 1319 of 2017 with Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1906 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017
Decided On : 06-02-2020

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Advocate, Mr. Akash Lamba, Advocate, M/s. M. Rambabu And Co. Mr. C. Ariyama Sundaram, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amar Dave, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate, Ms. Gunika gupta, Advocate, Mr. Divyang Gobind Chandiramani, Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shaishir S. Divatia, Advocate, Mr. K.P. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Zafar Inayat, Advocate, Mr. K.P. Sathish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. B. Mohanraj, Advocate, Mr. K. Kanagaraj, Advocate, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AAG Mr. T.R.B. Siva Kumar, Advocate, Mr. M. Karthiga, Advocate, Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, Advocate, Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Advocate, Mr. V. Balaji, Advocate, Mr. Vinod Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Atul Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Advocate, Mr. Shravanath Paruchuri, Advocate, for M/s. M. Rambabu And Co. Mr. S. Gowthaman, Advocate, for the Respondent

Points Of Law : 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.

Headnote:
Companies Act 1956 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 4(1) - Civil Appeal - Acquisition of Land - Seeking land - Contempt Petition - Appeals arise from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature - While allowing a writ appeal filed by first respondent Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and order of a learned Single Judge which was rendered in a challenge by appellants to an order - Registered deed of assignment was executed by Governor of Madras in favor of WSIL for an area of acres including disputed land - Deed of assignment recorded that State had been paid an amount of by WSIL towards cost of acquisition.
Finding Of The Court :
Narration of facts in earlier part of judgment makes it clear that on State of executed a deed of assignment in favor of WSIL - Deed of assignment specifically records that lands vested in State of free of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL - Entire case of first respondent was founded on an alleged sale deed which his father acquired land and an alleged oral lease by which land was leased in favor of WSIL in - Neither sale deed nor terms of alleged oral lease have been produced in course of proceedings - Once lands were acquired by State of any pre-existing claim of first respondent would stand extinguished - Purpose of Government Order is to enable DRO to rectify defects in land registry - Respondent raised an argument before Division Bench of High Court that on disputed land was acquired by State Government and assigned in favor of WSIL but in itself land thereafter was re-conveyed to State Government.
Result : Appeal disposed of

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - The present appeals [Civil Appeal Nos. 1318 and 1319 of 2017] 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 appeal [WA no 1201 of 2016] 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 a challenge by the appellants to an order dated 28 December 2015 of the District Revenue Officer ["DRO"] , Tiruvallur.

2. WS Industries (India) Ltd. ["WSIL"] , the appellant in Civil Appeal No 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 1894 ["Land Acquisition Act"] , seeking to acquire 49.67 acres of land situated at Porur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallar District, Tamil Nadu. The land 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 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 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 Rs. 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 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 Order [GO No 385] empowering the DRO to rectify defects that may have occurred in the course of updating the records in the Land Registry. 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 numbers 70/1, 73 and 77. On 12 September 2015, the first respondent addressed a legal notice to WSIL claiming an area admeasuring 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 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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document