IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the procedural requirements for transferring registry based on adverse possession must be strictly followed, highlighting the need for an adjudicatory process to resolve such claims.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

The petitioner’s application for transfer of registry based on a claim for adverse possession in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 (herein after referred to as the ‘T.R. Rules, 1966’) -is virtually refused by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar by Ext.P6 order, which is under challenge herein.

2. The sum and substance of the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure contemplated in Rule 10, Note (ii), has not been complied with while issuing the Ext.P6 order. Learned counsel would elaborate that, once an application under Rule 4 is preferred, and if the application falls under the category of uncontested cases under Rule 9, the procedure contemplated in Rule 10 has to be followed. Rule 10 speaks of two categories, the latter of which deals with cases where a decision cannot be taken without conducting a further enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar. In respect of that category, Note (ii) provides that, in cases where acquisition of title is claimed by adverse possession, notices have to be issued to the parties interested inviting objections, besides publishing on the notice board of the concerned Village, Panchayat and Taluk Offices. Thereafter, the application for transfer of registry have to be considered and disposed of on merits by the Deputy Tahsildar. The specific grievance espoused is that, this procedure was not followed. Learned counsel would also submit that the refusal of petitioner’s application vide Ext.P6, for the reason that resurvey in the village has not been completed, is not a legally recognizable ground for not effecting transfer of registry.

3. The learned Government Pleader argued to sustain Ext.P6 issued by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar. It was also pointed out that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the Thandapper holders, namely the legal heirs of one Kesava Iyer, have not been made parties in this writ petition. Inasmuch as the property is in the Thandapper account of late Kesava Iyer and since disputes exist between his legal heirs, mutation cannot be effected in favour of the petitioner, is the submission made by the learned Government Pleader.

4. Rule 28 of the T.R. Rules, 1966 is extracted here below:

“28.Transfer in favour of person proving title by adverse possession for 12 years or more.-Where parties who have no documents of title are shown in a summary enquiry to have been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession as reputed owners for 12 years or more transfer of registry may be made after notice, etc. as provided in Note(ii)toRule10.Theaction contemplated in this paragraph may be taken by the revenue officers either on their own motion or on the applications presented by the parties concerned.

Payment of revenue as evidenced by the production of kist receipts or by the testimony of the Village Officers may be taken as proof of possession, but the absence of such proof shall not be considered entirely to invalidate the claim and oral evidence of possession may be accepted.”

True that Rule 28 confers a right to a party to seek transfer of registry based on actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession as reputed owners for a period of 12 years or more, as provided in Note (ii) to Rule 10. This Court is of the opinion that, though an enabling power is conferred under Rule 28, the practical exercise of the same will pose various imponderables before the revenue authorities concerned. The question as to whether the applicant has been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession, that too as reputed owner for a period of 12 years or more, is a matter quite difficult -if not impossible -to be enquired into and satisfied by the Revenue Officers. Such exercise has to be done after issuing notice to the interested parties and a decision in this regard has to be taken on merits, as enjoined by Rule 10, Note (ii). It is true that Rule 28 h