A mortgage does not affect ownership title unless foreclosed; errors must be rectified regardless of procedural challenges in land administration.

ORDER

The petitioner assails an order dated 18.10.2023 of the District Revenue Officer rejecting the petitioner's request for issuance of patta.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the earlier recommendation of the 3^rd respondent dated 07.08.2019 to the first respondent. He points out that the 3^rd respondent concluded therein that the entry relating to 54 cents in S.No.383/15 was required to be rectified in favour of the petitioner and recommended such rectification to the first respondent. Learned counsel next refers to the order issued by the first respondent on 30.04.2021. By referring to paragraph Nos.8 and 9 thereof, learned counsel submits that the first respondent acknowledged that an error occurred during the UDR scheme in respect of S.No.358/15 in as much as the property was recorded as natham land. Therefore, the first respondent directed the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi to take action to rectify such error. In spite of such direction, learned counsel submits that the petitioner's request for patta was rejected under the impugned order by citing untenable reasons such as the creation of a mortgage in respect of the land, the fact that patta had not been issued in respect of S.No.358/15 during the UDR period and the fact that there is no procedure for rectifying errors that occurred during the pre-UDR period.

3.Learned Additional Government Pleader responded to these contentions by submitting that the District Revenue Officer is authorised to rectify errors that occurred during the UDR period. He contends that the error pointed out by the petitioner has occurred during the pre-UDR period. In this connection, he also refers to paragraph No.6(e) of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not challenge the classification of the land during the natham settlement as “Natham Vacant”.

4.On perusal of the detailed report and recommendation of the 3^rd respondent dated 07.08.2019, it is noticeable that the 3^rd respondent recommended that rectification be made in favour of the petitioner in respect of

54 cents in S.No.358/15. Such recommendation has been made after examining the revenue records relating to the pre-UDR period. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent has also acknowledged that the error occurred and directed the District Revenue Officer to rectify the errors. The order impugned herein was issued subsequently.

5.On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the said order records at inner page No.8 that the property was mortgaged to one Srinivasa Iyengar. The non-effacement of the entry relating to the mortgage is cited as one of the grounds for refusal. The second ground cited therein is that after the land in S.No.114 was converted into S.Nos.358/13 and 358/15, patta was issued in respect of S.No.358/13, but not in respect of S.No.358/15. The 3^rd reason mentioned therein is that there is no procedure prescribed for dealing with an error committed for lands recorded in the Ground Rent Register.

6.The fact that a mortgage was created in respect of the relevant land is evidently no reason to decline to issue patta to the owner thereof because a mortgage does not affect the title of the owner unless there is a foreclosure or sale by the mortgagee. In this case, the impugned order even refers to the discharge of the mortgage. Likewise, even the Ground Rent Register reflects the name of the predecessor of the petitioner. In those circumstances, the non-issuance of patta in respect of S.No.358/15 is immaterial. The lack of a procedure to deal with errors of the kind noticed in this matter cannot be a reason to reject the petitioner's application after noticing that an error had been co