Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and ConclusionPandarapattom holders have ownership-like rights, but tenants cannot routinely get mutation in revenue records, as authorities refuse transfers explicitly on this ground ["THANU PILLAI N S vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]. While protected tenants elsewhere succeed via evidence/diligence ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67400"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1028"], pandarapattom's special tenure restricts this; no sources affirm tenant mutation success for such lands ["1971 0 Supreme(Ker) 10"] ["1970 0 Supreme(Ker) 201"]. Thus, tenants of pandarapattom land generally cannot get mutation in their name.
In the realm of , particularly in regions like Kerala where pandarapattom lands—often associated with temple endowments or religious institutions—are common, tenants frequently wonder about their rights in revenue records. A pressing question arises: Can a tenant of pandarapattom get in their name as an owner? This query touches on critical distinctions between possession, , and , as well as the limited role of entries.
This article breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from established . Note that this is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Pandarapattom refers to lands granted or leased by temples, devaswoms, or religious endowments, typically on a hereditary or long-term basis. Tenants on such lands pay rent (pandarapattom) to the endowment, acknowledging the of the landlord. While these tenancies may confer certain , they do not equate to . [
#Pandarapattom, #TenantRights, #LandMutation
Dl, and that the 11th defendant did not get title to the property were over-ruled by the learned single judge, and he agreed with the findings of the court below on these questions. ... As considerable doubt was entertained on the question whether pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State is 'estate' within the meaning of Art.31A (2) (a) that question was referred to a Bench of five judges. ... In another case (AS-No. 203 of 1040), in which the teaure was denominated Vettolivoo Pattom, very similar to Kulikaiom, the Court held 12 years to be a....
(the alleged protected tenant) and Smt. ... One Gudala Jangaiah was the protected tenant of the subject property, and his name was also recorded in the pahanies during the aforesaid period. The said Jangaiah passed away on 24.02.1994, and after his demise, his three sons—namely G. Venkataiah, G. Ramulu, and G. ... He also submitted yet another representation dated 24.06.2025 to the 4th respondent seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records and for conducting a survey. Hence, he prays to allow th....
(the alleged protected tenant) and Smt. ... One Gudala Jangaiah was the protected tenant of the subject property, and his name was also recorded in the pahanies during the aforesaid period. The said Jangaiah passed away on 24.02.1994, and after his demise, his three sons—namely G. Venkataiah, G. Ramulu, and G. ... He also submitted yet another representation dated 24.06.2025 to the 4th respondent seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records and for conducting a survey. Hence, he prays to allow th....
(the alleged protected tenant) and Smt. ... He also submitted yet another representation dated 24.06.2025 to the 4th respondent seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records and for conducting a survey. Hence, he prays to allow this Writ Petition. ... One Gudala Jangaiah was the protected tenant of the subject property, and his name was also recorded in the pahanies during the aforesaid period. The said Jangaiah passed away on 24.02.1994, and after his demise, his three sons—namely G. Venkataiah, ....
The mutation entry in the name of heirs and legal representatives of Muljibhai Mathurbhai Dalwadi namely the original petitioner and other heirs namely Mutation Entry No. 2665 was made on 14.06.1974 in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 816 and the said mutation entry was approved on 31.07.1974 itslef ... Resultantly, Mutation Entry No. 8338 dated 03.07.1999 was entered deleting the name of the original petitioner and others for recording the name of the State Gov....
herein and his name was also recorded as a tenant under Act 10 of 1969. ... This is nothing but an attempt by the first respondent in collusion with the third respondent to get rid of the tenant while purchasing the property. ... Claiming that the said Santhanam, had transferred the lease hold rights to the first respondent herein, the first respondent moved the Record Officer and an order was passed by the Record Officer on 02.08.1985 accepting the transfer and recording the name of the first responden....
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner for transfer of registry is not being entertained on the sole ground that the land in question is pandarapattom land. ... of the petitioner and his sister regarding the property included in Ext.P2 petition after conducting necessary enquiries regarding the right to get transfer of registry as the legal heirs of late Smt.Sivakami Pillai and Sri.Neelakanta Pillai; D UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPYOF THE TAX RECEIPTS IN THE NAME#HL_E....
(2021) 12 SCC 27 wherein it was emphatically stated that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory provisions. ... The petitioners’ names were thereafter deleted and the name of respondent No.4 was entered in the revenue records. ... No copy of any speaking order, mutation proceedings, succession proceedings, or enquiry report justifying such deletion and mutation has been produced before this Court by the revenue authorities.
record, name of Ibrahim is shown and Gedalmiya's name is not shown. ... If a person is an agriculturist, he is expected to act vigilantly for mutation of his name by way of succession in the revenue record. Such belated action has rightly been not permitted by the revenue authorities and has rightly been rejected by the revenue authorities. 9. ... The father of the petitioners late Gedalmiya Alladin was the tenant in respect of the disputed land in question on tillers day. ... Basiranbibi who also rema....
... I think, a holder of pandarapattom land satisfies even the orthodox definition of ownership by Austin. ... So much so, if the expression, "estate" does not occur in the local law, the name given to anything (if there is such a thing in the area) that answers the basic concept of an estate would be the local equivalent and that thing would be an estate within the meaning of the article. ... What the decision emphasises is that while, on the one hand, it is not correct to say that a ryotwari pattadar is an ordinary tenant of the Governm....
He has no other accommodation available in the city. The need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and comparative hardship is also in his favour. The tenant-petitioner can get alternative accommodation allotted in his name.
Because of this entry, the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.1969 as recorded a finding that the mutation ought to have been attested in his favour. A copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Bikrami 1995-96 Bikrami is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-N alongwith Jamabandi Chaterbab for 2003-2004, 1987-1988 Bikrami. While attesting the mutation Order No. 121, his name has also been reflected as tenant.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Kalya Patil’s name is entered as a protected tenant in the concerned revenue records “the plaintiff states that in the survey that took place in 1946, the said Kalya Patil (deceased) was found in possession of following 14 survey numbers forming part of suit lands…..... Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records as a protected tenant by effecting Mutation Entry No. 289.”
Subsequently, steps were taken to get the mutation entries transferred to their name. It is well settled that the mutation entry is not a document of title. However, as the adoptive father of the plaintiff namely Kadayya was the head of the family, after the death of other members, mutation entries continued in his name. In fact, the plaintiff relied on Ex.P-1, the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.51/88, Ex.P-2, the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.51/88.
They have managed to get the mutation entries made in their name. When we read the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff on record it gives an impression this property exists; it is in their possession and defendants are trying to interfere with their possession. 1 to 24 have sold 18 guntas out of this land in favour of Defendant nos.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
