Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2994
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B. BALAJI, J.
K. Thangasamy - Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration - Respondent
W.P. (MD) Nos. 19196, 22191 of 2019, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 15557, 15559, 15560 of 2019, 20529 of 2023
Decided On : 19-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Murugappan
For the Respondent: K. Malathi
No limitation period exists for seeking rectification of errors in UDR survey records under the Patta Passbook Act or G.O.(Ms).No.385, allowing applications regardless of delay if reasonable explanations are provided.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 - Writ petitions challenging orders regarding rectification of UDR survey records - Petitioners claimed errors in property extent during UDR survey - Court addressed limitation for seeking corrections - No specific time limit prescribed under the Patta Passbook Act or G.O.(Ms).No.385 dated 17.08.2004 for rectification applications. (Paras 7, 19)
(B) Powers of District Revenue Officer - The powers conferred under G.O.(Ms).No.385 dated 17.08.2004 allow for rectification of errors beyond clerical mistakes, including wrong classification of lands. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the incorrect survey of property extent and sought rectification after discovering errors during litigation. The first petition involved a claim of 4 acres and 5 cents instead of 3 acres and 50 cents, while the second involved joint ownership issues after a family member's death.
Findings of Court:
The court found no limitation period for rectification applications under the relevant acts and government orders, allowing the petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether there is a limitation period for seeking corrections in UDR survey records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a specific time limit in the Patta Passbook Act or G.O.(Ms).No.385 allows for rectification requests regardless of delay, provided reasonable explanations are given.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed and orders set aside.
Key Points: - (!) There is no limitation period prescribed for seeking rectification of errors in UDR survey records under the Patta Passbook Act or G.O.(Ms).No.385, allowing applications regardless of delay with reasonable explanations. - (!) G.O.(Ms).No.385 (17.08.2004) empowers District Revenue Officers to conduct detailed enquiries and rectify errors crept in during UDR survey, including wrong classification of lands. - (!) The Patta Passbook Act provides appeal, revision, and suit for declaration, but the Government Order’s powers do not override or exhaust the Act; lack of a time limit under the GO does not bar rectification requests. - (!) Courts may consider delay and laches in light of delay explanations, but absence of a prescribed time limit under the Act and GO allows remittance for fresh consideration. - (!) The petitions were allowed; impugned orders rejected for belated rectification were set aside and remitted to the District Revenue Officer for fresh consideration with eight weeks. - (!) There is critical distinction between powers under GO 385 and the remedies under Patta Passbook Act; GO 385 does not create a time-bar where none exists in the Act. - (!) The decision emphasizes reasonable explanations for delay and cautions against treating GO 385 as overriding statutory provisions. - (!) The Court acknowledged the helpful conduct of counsel and remitted the matter for final orders. - (!) No costs awarded; connected petitions closed.
Question 1?
What is the question of limitation for rectification of UDR survey records under the Patta Passbook Act and G.O.(Ms).No.385?
Question 2?
How are the powers of District Revenue Officer under G.O.(Ms).No.385 dated 17.08.2004 interpreted in relation to rectification beyond clerical errors?
Question 3?
What remedy and time framework exist for challenging or rectifying UDR survey errors according to the Patta Passbook Act, G.O.(Ms).No.385, and related provisions?
ORDER :
1. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.22191 of 2019, has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.P6/39536/2016 dated 30.07.2018 and to consequently direct the first respondent to correct the extent of property in S.No.287/1 Rettai Orani Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk and District as 4 acres and 5 cents instead of 3 acres and 50 cents. W.P.(MD)No.19196 of 2019, has been filed challenging the order in Pa.Mu.P5/34205/2018 dated 28.05.2018, on the file of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District and to consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue patta in the name of the petitioner. In both these Writ Petitions an interesting question as to whether there is any limitation to seek for rectification of the UDR survey records has arisen for consideration.
2. I have heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22191 of 2019 and Mr.R.Murugappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19196 of 2019.
3. In view of the said common question arising in both these Writ Petitions, Writ Petitions have been heard together today.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22191 of 2019, would submit that the petitioner claims that his predecessors had purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 08.05.1946, under Document No.1516 of 1946. According to the petitioners, during UDR survey, the property has been mistakenly resurveyed as 3 acres 50 cents instead of 4 acres 5 cents which is clearly evidenced from the extent conveyed under the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, his father was illiterate and therefore, he did not notice the mistake and only when there was a litigation between the petitioner and a third party, the error came to light and the petitioner submitted an application on 11.08.2016 and yet another application on 06.10.2016, seeking rectification of the extent.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the extent of 55 cents which has been omitted in the patta of the petitioner has been wrongly included during UDR survey in the property of the successors of Chinnaiah Nadar, whose grandson is cited as the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition.
6. In W.P.(MD)No.19196 of 2019, the case of the petitioners is that an extent of 20.16 hectares in Ilanthaikulam Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District was originally owned by one Muniyandi, who had two sons by name M.Karuppan and M.Karuppiah. M.Karuppan pre-deceased his father Muniyandi and the first petitioner is the son of the other son of C.Muniyandi, M.Karuppan. According to the petitioners they were all minors and they were under the guardianship of Muniyandi and their paternal uncle M.Karuppiah and were living as a single family. However, after the death of Muniyandi in 1953, the lands of an extent of 26.56 acres in Old Paimash Nos.344, 345 and 301, correlating to T.S.No.189 of Mookaiyur Village, were wrongly registered in the name of M.Karuppiah alone, though legal heirs of both Karuppan and Karuppiah were the joint owners. Complaining that pattas have been wrongly issued, consequent to errors creeping in during Updating Register Scheme, the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the third respondent. However, said appeal was rejected on the ground that the request was belated and beyond the period of limitation.
7. Therefore, the question in both these Writ Petitions is as to whether there is any limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 or under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 or any other legislation concerned or related to the subject matter, prescribing any time limit for seeking any correction of any errors that has crept in during UDR survey.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.J.Barathan, would submit that under the scheme of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983 the Tahsildar is empowered to issue patta passbook in respect of a Taluk which shall be considered as a unit for the issuance of patta passbook. He would also refer
