The Supreme Court on October 16, dismissed appeals filed by flat buyer S. Gururaj and Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. They had challenged the Madras High Court’s order upholding the cancellation of a ryotwari patta (a government land-ownership grant) over land in Thiruvallur district. The bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, however, asked the State to give the flat owners a vacant site before any demolition begins.
Background
The dispute concerns 0.72 acres of Survey No. 572 in Thirumullaivoyal village. The 1911 revenue register records the land as “Government Poramboke – Kanakkan Kuttai”, meaning public-use land. In 2011, the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur, granted a ryotwari patta to P. Ramadoss, the last registered holder.
The bank held a mortgage on the land for credit facilities of Rs. 3.40 crore. A portion was later transferred to his wife, and a builder constructed 20 flats there. In December 2019, the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelled the patta, and the High Court dismissed the bank’s writ petition.
The appellants argued that no authority had ever found the land to be a tank. They also said the planning authority had marked the area as a “Mixed Residential Zone” and that the bank and flat owners were never heard. The State argued that the revenue officer had no power to grant a patta over communal land, citing Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
The bench held that the 1948 Act does not require a formal finding before protecting communal government land. Since the appellants claimed a patta, it was for them to show the land was ryoti land, and the early revenue records did not support that. On zoning, the Court said:
“Therefore, notifying a block of area in the development zone as commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed residential/mixed-use cannot be construed as taking away the Government’s rights in Poramboke lands, forests, water bodies/tanks, etc.”
The Court also found no denial of hearing, as notice had gone to the person holding the patta. At the same time, it noted that the municipality had approved building plans and revenue records had been altered. This, it said, led buyers to believe the land was free from any objection.
“Because of these Orders and Revenue Records, the flat owners have been led to believe that the Government has no interest under Section 14-A of the Act, 1948. Therefore, directing the demolition of flats without examining the hardship of the flat owners and the independent remedies available to them in law against the owner of the land and the developer of the apartments would cause irreparable financial injury and throw the families on the streets.”
The Court dismissed all three appeals without costs. It directed the Chief Secretary and the Tiruvallur District Collector to allot a vacant, commensurate site to the flat owners, preferably within six months, and only then demolish the constructed 0.22 acres.
The flat owners and the bank may pursue civil remedies against the developer, owner or mortgagor, and the State may proceed with disciplinary action against erring officers.
