S. GURURAJ v. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 1146 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13629 OF 2026

S. GURURAJ … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13630 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13631 OF 2026

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. The Civil Appeals assail the Orders dated 11.07.2024 and 02.07.2025

in Writ Petition No. 8661 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature at

Madras. Civil Appeal Nos. 13630 and 13631 of 2026 were filed by Tamil Nadu

Mercantile Bank Limited, Valasaravakkam Branch, Chennai. S. Gururaj, the

flat buyer, filed Civil Appeal No. 13629 of 2026.

Signature Not Verified

2. Digitally signed by LOKESH ARORA The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, Date: 2026.10.16 18:15:09 IST Reason: 1948 (“Act, 1948”) provides for the repeal of the permanent settlement. It also

provides for the acquisition of landholders’ rights in permanently settled and 1

certain other estates in the erstwhile Province of Madras, now the State of

Tamil Nadu, and for the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such estates.

The Act, 1948, while doing away with the intermediary system in land

regulation and administration, contemplated recognising a ryot’s entitlement

to protection of possession and the grant of a ryotwari patta for ryoti land.

3. “Ryot land” means1 cultivable land in an estate other than private land,

but does not include:

a. beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation

channels;

b. threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village sites and other lands situated in

any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers;

c. lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates

of rent if granted before passing of this Act or free or rent if granted after

that date, so long as the service tenure subsists.

Therefore, the extended definition of Ryoti land means entirable lands

in an estate by a Ryot who holds it for agriculture on condition of paying rent

to the landholder which is legally due other than private land.2 The

consideration relates to the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Respondent No. 2 for

Survey No. 572, to an extent of 0.72 acres, for land locally known as

“Kanakkan Pillai Kuttai”.

4. The State of Tamil Nadu, through Amendment Act No. 49 of 1974,

introduced Section 14-A into the principal Act, which reads as under:

1P Ramanatha Aiyar: Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edition, Vol. 4, Pp. 5657. 2State of T.N. v. His Holiness Srilla Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Adheenakaratha and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 313.

“14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani¾ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani. (2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private bank or oorani under this Act before the date of publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for the purpose of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landlord nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”

5. The controversy in the Civil Appeals turns on the District

Administration's will and determination to give effect to the letter and spirit

of Section 14-A of the Act, 1948.

6. The subject matter of the Civil Appeals comprises 0.72 acres out of 1.68

acres in Survey No. 572, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk (now

under Avadi Taluk), Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. The Resurvey and

Resettlement (RSR) ‘A’ Register of 1911 records it as Government Poramboke -

Kanakkan Kuttai. Title Deed (T.D.) No. 300 was issued in favour of Sri T.N.

Venugopal Pillai for a Minor Inam, an adjacent parcel of land to the subject

matter. The subject matter was treated as an appurtenance to the Inam land

and known as Kanakku Pillai Kuttai.

7. The detailed narrative in the Revenue Records regarding the origin and

continuity of the subject matter is not particularly relevant either to

considering the challenge to the impugned Order or to disposing of the Civil

Appeals. On 28.08.1980, the heirs of the late Venugopal Pillai executed a Sale

Deed for 0.50 acres of the subject matter in favour of R. Kandhasamy Pillai.

On 02.09.1988, A. Palanichamy Nadar purchased 0.22 acres from R.

Kandhasamy Pillai via Sale Deed No. 6138/1988 and an additional 0.50 acres

via Sale Deed No. 6139/1988 in Survey No. 572. Palanichamy Nadar claims

ownership and possession of 0.72 acres in the subject matter of the Appeals.

On 15.11.1999, Palanichamy Nadar died intestate. His legal heirs, on

13.12.2004, executed registered Sale Deed documents Nos. 14089 and 14090

of 2004, relinquishing the 6/7th share in favour of P. Ramadoss. Thus, P.

Ramadoss is the last registered holder of the subject matter. P. Ramadoss was

running Sree Jayasakthi Timber Mart. On 24.05.2005, P. Ramadoss was

granted Building Permit No. C 3031 by Avadi Municipality. The Appellants

also relied on the fact that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

delineated Survey No. 572 as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. It is important to

note that on 18.10.2010, for the first time, P. Ramadoss filed a petition for the

grant of Ryotwari Patta before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur (“DRO,

Tiruvallur”). The DRO, Tiruvallur, vide Order R.C. No. 25714/2010/B1 dated

21.01.2011, granted Ryotwari Patta to P. Ramadoss. To appreciate the

controversy between the parties, it is necessary to accept the consideration

and conclusion recorded by the DRO, Tiruvallur, hereinunder:-

“I have carefully considered the arguments and perused the connected records. At the outset, I must mention here that the village map clearly reveals that there is no Kuttai in S.No. 572 and the Kuttai is situated only in S.No. 360 which is situated North-east of the suit land. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate it is the paramount duty of the authorities to look into the user of land to which it is put on ground and not by the wrong entries in and old records. As rightly contended by the Advocate for the claimant every citizen has got a right to call upon the Government to discharge its duties. In Murugan Versus United states it is said: “The vast expansion of this field of administrative regulation in response to the pressure of social needs is made paddiable under our system by adherence to the basic principles that the legislature shall approximately determine the standards of administrative action and that in judicial citizen shall be protected by the

rudimentary requirements of fair play. These demands are fair and open hearing for essential, alike to the legal validity of administrative regulations and to maintenance of public confidence in the value and soundness of the important Governmental process. Such a hearing has been described as an unexercisable safeguarded.” From an entire review of the position based on facts and evidence D records; I have no other alternative excepting to hold that the claim land was never a Kuttai Poramboke but only a ryoti land covered by T.D. No. 300 and wrongly allowed to continue as Kuttai Poramboke. Therefore, under the powers delegated to me under G.O.Ms. No. 1300, Revenue Department, dated 03.10.1971, read with G.O.Ms. No. 370, Commercial Taxes, Religious Endowments Department, dated 03.10.1974. I allow a ryotwari patta in favour of Thiru. P. Ramadoss, son of S.A. Palanichamy, in respect of 72 cents out of 1.68 acres in S. No. 572 of Thirumullaivoyal in Ambathur Taluk of Tiruvallur District. In the result, the claim succeeds.”

8. The above Order appears to result in consequential amendments to the

Town Survey Land Register, specifically Survey No. 572/2 (T.S. No. 4/2, Block

84, Ward D). P. Ramadoss mortgaged 0.72 acres to Tamil Nadu Mercantile

Bank Limited (TMB), Valasaravakkam Branch/Appellant in Civil Appeal

Nos.13630 and 13631 of 2026, to secure credit facilities of Rs. 3.40 Crores.

9. P. Ramadoss executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 06.12.2012

for 0.22 acres in T.S. No. 4/2 in favour of his wife, R. Uma. On 12.08.2013,

his wife executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of B.

Lakshminarasimhan, proprietor of M/s. MVM Builders & Promoters. Avadi

Municipality approved subdivision building plans to erect 20 residential flats

across four blocks on the 0.22 acres released in favour of R. Uma. The builder

constructed 20 apartments and sold them to individual flat buyers, along with

an undivided share in Survey No. 572/2. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.

13629 of 2026 is the flat owner.

10. Aggrieved by the grant of the Ryotwari Patta, a third-party objector filed

a Petition on 10.02.2014 before the Additional Chief Secretary cum

Commissioner, Land Administration, challenging the Order dated 21.01.2011

of the DRO, Tiruvallur. P. Ramadoss, the Pattadar, was impleaded as a

respondent in the proceedings before the Commissioner of Land

Administration (“CLA”). On 26.12.2019, the CLA allowed the Petition and set

aside the Ryotwari Patta dated 21.01.2011 in favour of P. Ramadoss. The

findings are summarised as follows:

A. On Jurisdiction and Limitation: The DRO, Tiruvallur granted

Ryotwari Patta under G.O. Ms. No. 1300 (Revenue Department) dated

30.04.1971, read with G.O. Ms. No. 370 (Commercial Taxes & Religious

Endowments Department) dated 03.10.1974. The statutory time limits for

entertaining applications under these Government Orders expired on

30.06.1975 and 31.03.1977, respectively. Under the relevant Inam and Estate

Abolition Acts (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and Act 26 of 1948), the limitation

periods ended on 31.03.1977 and 30.08.1987, respectively. The Respondent

P. Ramadoss filed his Application only on 18.10.2010, several decades after

the limitation periods had expired. Consequently, the DRO, Tiruvallur, had

neither jurisdiction nor authority to entertain the Petition or grant Patta.

B. Classification: As per the Resettlement Register (RSR / 1911 Register),

S.No. 572 (1.68 acres) is recorded as "Government Poramboke Kanakkan

Kuttai". As per the Town Survey 'A' Register, the land in Ward D, Block 84,

T.S. No. 4, measuring 6800 sq. meters, is recorded as “Sarkar Poramboke –

Kanakkan Pillai Kuttai”. Although a ground inspection found the pond no

longer visible due to encroachment, the land remains legally an objectionable

watercourse poramboke dedicated to public and cattle use. Granting Patta

over watercourse land was strictly illegal and contrary to established law.

C. On Handling of Official Files: The then DRO, Tiruvallur, issued the

Order dated 21.01.2011 without calling for any reports or records from the

jurisdictional Tahsildar. Verification of the 2010 Personal Register of the

dealing B1 Assistant confirmed that the current number 25714 was never

entered in that seat. The Distribution Register and Tapal Register showed that

the current number 25714 had been assigned to the F Section (F3) for land

acquisition matters. The actual NOC/Patta Application filed by P. Ramadoss

on 18.10.2010 bore file number 35714/2010, which the DRO deliberately

misrepresented as 25714/2010 in the proceedings. File No. 35714/2010 was

untraceable, contained no entry regarding its closure or disposal, and was

never deposited in the Collectorate Record Room, thereby proving that the

Order was not passed in a bona fide officiating capacity.

D. On Revenue Staff: Subordinate Revenue officials, including the

Additional Personal Assistant (Land) to the District Collector, the Ambattur

Tahsildar, the Section Head Clerk, the B1 Assistant, and the Taluk Survey

staff, failed to object to the grant of Patta over an objectionable watercourse.

They also failed to alert higher Authorities, such as the District Collector, the

Director of Survey and Settlement, or the CLA, thereby leaving the fraudulent

transaction concealed until a Public Welfare Body intervened.

E. Subdivision and Creation of Third-Party Rights: Following the DRO’s

2011 Order, S.No. 572 was irregularly subdivided into:

i. S.No. 572/1 (900 sq. m / 0.09.0 Ha): Kanakkankuttai (presently

Manikandapuram Main Road).

ii. S.No. 572/2 (2915 sq. m / 0.29.0 Ha): Patta No. 6558 in favour of P.

Ramadoss, where an apartment building, MVM Aparajithapuri, was

constructed on 900 sq. m, an old dilapidated building occupied 130

sq. m, and 1885 sq. m remained vacant.

iii. S.No. 572/3 (2985 sq. m / 0.30.0 Ha): Kanakkankuttai.

The District Administration’s inaction allowed the illegal construction of

multi-storey apartments and the subsequent sale of flats to innocent third-

party purchasers who were kept unaware of the fraudulent title.

F. Cancellation of Order & Patta: The Order of the then DRO, Tiruvallur

(Rc. No. 25714/2010/B1) dated 21.01.2011, and the consequential Patta

issued to P. Ramadoss were cancelled. The District Collector was directed to

resume and restore the land as Government poramboke, make the necessary

entries in the Prohibitory Order Book (POB), and report compliance within 15

days.

G. Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings: The District Collector was

directed to initiate severe disciplinary action and file criminal cases within 15

days against the then DRO, Tiruvallur, all subordinate officials involved, and

any other officials found complicit in facilitating the fraud.

11. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, the Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.

13630 and 13631 of 2026, filed Writ Petition No. 8661 of 2020 challenging

the Order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the CLA. The impugned Order

dismissed the Writ Petition. The summary of the conclusions is stated

hereunder: -

A. The High Court adopted the factual and legal conclusions recorded in

paragraph 15 of the Commissioner of Land Administration Order dated

26.12.2019, which characterise the 2011 DRO, Tiruvallur grant of patta as a

product of administrative fraud.

B. The land was classified as "Kanakkankuttai" before and throughout the

settlement proceedings under the Act, 1948. Communal water bodies vest in

the State free from all encumbrances and cannot be granted on patta to either

ryots or erstwhile landholders.

C. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948 expressly bars the grant of patta even in

respect of private tanks or ooranis and mandates the cancellation of any patta

erroneously or mistakenly issued over such lands. The DRO, Tiruvallur, had

no authority to reclassify communal poramboke land into ryoti land. The

power of reclassification under Section 20-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land

Act, 1908, was extinguished upon its repeal by the Act, 1948.

D. That G.O.Ms. No. 1300 dated 30.04.1971 applied strictly to ryoti lands

in continuous occupation and could never authorise regularisation or grant

of patta for water bodies.

E. That Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank is a mere mortgagee claiming under

P. Ramadoss. Because P. Ramadoss procured the patta by fraud over

Government watercourse land, the mortgage created no valid charge against

the State. Since the Bank’s mortgagor had no marketable title, hearing the

Bank would have been an empty formality that could not alter the legal

character of a public water body.

F. The Court directed the District Administration to evict all occupants,

demolish all unauthorised residential and commercial structures across the

entire 1.68 acres of Survey No. 572, and restore the water body within 16

weeks.

G. The Court ordered the District Collector, Tiruvallur, to inquire into the

fraudulent issuance of the 2011 Patta, initiate disciplinary and criminal

proceedings against all responsible officials, bar them from key posts, and

place them under surveillance by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Department.

H. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition while preserving the Bank’s

statutory liberty to proceed against the borrower/mortgagor under SARFAESI

and to initiate criminal proceedings, excluding the period of writ pendency

from limitation under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

12. Accordingly, the flat owner and Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited

have filed Civil Appeal Nos. 13629-13631 of 2026, challenging the impugned

Order.

13. We have heard Mr. T. Raja, learned Senior Counsel and Mr K.S.

Mahadevan, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. Jayasree

Narasimhan, Counsel for the Respondents.

14. Counsel for the Appellants argue that the impugned Order assumes

that the subject matter of the Civil Appeals is a tank. This finding is baseless,

and the existence of the tank is recorded by reference to an Order passed by

the High Court in Writ Petition No. 10075 of 2018. According to him, the Court

made no such finding in that Writ Petition. The Chennai Metropolitan

Authority has shown the subject land as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. The zonal

development plan conclusively proves that the subject land is ryotwari land

and not a water body. The DRO, Tiruvallur, is competent under G.O.Ms.

No.1300 dated 30.04.1971 read with G.O.Ms. No.370 dated 03.10.1974, to

entertain a petition for the grant of Ryotwari patta. The Commissioner of Land

Administration did not hear the bank, the flat owners, or any bona fide

purchasers of land. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, is not attracted to the

circumstances of the case.

15. Advocate Jayasree Narasimhan argues that the earliest resurvey and

settlement record of 1911 described the subject matter as “Government

Poramboke – Kanakkam Kuttai”. The Registered Deed inter se parties does not

affect the rights possessed under the Act, 1948, by the Government/Local

Bodies. The DRO, Tiruvallur, exercised jurisdiction not available to him.

Without prejudice to the first contention, it is argued that the DRO, Tiruvallur,

acted beyond the record. The survey and settlement operations, concluded

long ago by the grant of ryotwari pattas, were followed by renewed efforts as

late as 2010 to secure a ryotwari patta with urbanisation. The Revenue Officer

does not have jurisdiction to grant a patta for non-ryoti land, i.e., communal

land, Government Poramboke, bank, forest, etc. After examining the record,

the CLA rightly set aside the patta dated 21.01.2011. The Assignee/P.

Ramadoss did not challenge the CLA Order dated 26.12.2019, but as

Mortgagee, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited questioned it in Writ Petition

No. 8661 of 2020. The impugned Order rejected the challenge for valid and

available reasons. To protect non-ryoti land from being granted as ryotwari

pattas, the State Legislature enacted Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, and

nullified pattas granted prior to the amendment for private land or oorani.

Section 14-A further deems that, for private land or oorani, the landholder or

any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act, 1948. Therefore,

the Government's development work is for the restoration of a water body,

and no exception can be made.

16. We have perused the record, including the latest Report dated

09.10.2026, filed by the District Collector, Tiruvallur. The said Report is made

part of this Judgment.

17. The Appellant takes exception to the Order dated 26.12.2019 on the

ground that no Authority has adjudicated that the subject matter of the

Appeal is a tank. In our considered view, this contention appears untenable

because the Act, 1948 does not require adjudication to protect communal

Government Poramboke, etc. Simply put, the Ryotiwari tenures under the Act,

1948 apply to Ryoti land covered by the said Act. The inquiry in this behalf

determines the nature of the land, the type of enjoyment, the period of

enjoyment, and the entitlement to grant of patta.

18. In Salem Municipality v. P. Kumar and Others,3 this Court considered

the definitions under Sections 3(15), 3(16) and 14-A(1) of the Act, 1948. The

background in the Judgment concerns a tank and tank bund. Between 1940

and 1946, Zamindar Ganambal granted multiple seasonal 8-month leases

(November–June) for the “Chinneri Tank Bund” dry wasteland to S.

Vijayaranga Mudaliar, who held possession before the July monsoon

submergence. Following the Act, 1948, the land vested in the State, and the

Government took possession on 12.01.1951. Despite Mudaliar's eligibility for

a Ryotwari Patta under Section 11 of the Act, 1948, the plaintiff, P.C.

Pachiappan, purchased the 4.91-acre suit property on 29.09.1952. The

Plaintiff's Applications for a Ryotwari Patta were rejected because the land

constitutes "Achuvan Eri", i.e., a Class IV irrigation lake, and must be

preserved as a submergible tank for local farmers (ayacutdars). On

23.02.1984, the State Government transferred the entire 24.62-acre area to

the Salem Municipality for a new bus stand. In response, the Plaintiff filed

three successive Suits for declaration of title and injunctions, culminating in

the High Court, where the judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside.

In the above factual background, the following paragraphs are excerpted:

“19. It is apparent from the definition of “ryot” as defined under Section 3(15), means a person who holds the land for the purpose of agriculture. It is necessary for such a “ryot” to hold “ryoti land” in an estate. Ryoti land has been defined in Section 3(16) as cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels. Thus, as the area in question formed part of the tank it was clearly not ryoti land as per the said definition in Section 3(16). As such, the predecessor-in-interest S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar or the plaintiff could not be said to be “ryot” holding “ryoti” land. xxx xxx xxx

28. Section 14-A(1) makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or ooranies. Even if any patta has been granted the same shall stand cancelled and the land of the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land of neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under the Act.

29. It is apparent from the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 3(15) and 3(16) of the 1908 Act and the provisions contained in Sections 3, 11 and 14-A of the 1948 Act that the land of the tank is not “ryoti land” as such no rights of “ryot” could accrue in the person by holding the land

on temporary arrangement of lease granted for 8 months in a year when water was not there in the tanks. Such bodies are protected by virtue of the aforesaid provisions carved out under the Acts of 1908 and 1948. The amendment made in 1974 in Section 14-A makes it clear that even if any ryot patta has been granted to any incumbent even with respect to private tank or ooranies, that shall be inoperative and stand cancelled.”

18.1 Finally, it was held that the Revenue entries show that the entire area

of 24.62 acres had been recorded as a tank continuously from 1950 to 1995.

Since the land formed part of a tank reserved for common use, no right

accrued to the plaintiff to claim Ryotwari Patta, as his predecessor was not a

Ryot and the disputed land was not Ryotwari land. The vendor did not hold

the land for 12 consecutive years, so no right, title, or interest accrued to the

Vendor or the Plaintiff.

19. Therefore, non-Ryoti lands do not fall within the scope of granting a

patta under the Act, 1948. Whenever a dispute arises over entitlement to a

patta, the nature of the land is determined by appreciating entries in the

earliest Revenue Records, including Survey and Settlement Records. The

Appellants do not contend that the Revenue Records show the subject matter

as Ryoti land during the Survey and Settlement operation or the

contemporaneous faslis. Since the Appellants claim a Ryotwari patta, they

must establish the ingredients for the land to be termed Ryoti land and that

P. Ramadoss is entitled to a Ryotwari Patta. Accordingly, the first objection to

the impugned Orders is rejected.

20. It is argued that, under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning

Act, 1971 (“Act, 1971”), the urban area development plan for the land has

been notified as a “Mixed Residential Zone”. Therefore, the basis of the

Commissioner's Order or the Writ Court’s Order is completely effaced, and

consequently the cancellation of the Ryotwari Patta vide Order dated

26.04.2019 is illegal.

21. The Statement of Objects and Scope of the Acts of 1971 and 1948 is

noted. 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 said argument does not take into

account that zoning regulations are not confined to a single survey number

but apply when an individual undertakes development activity in the notified

area. The development of a plot conforms to the notified zoning requirement.

Reference to the subject matter being in a mixed residential zone, either in

fact or in law, cannot be treated as effacing the effect of Section 14-A of the

Act, 1948.

22. It is further argued that the CLA did not hear the Mortgagee and the

flat owners while setting aside the Ryotwari Patta. This argument requires

examining whether the CLA heard no one or only the person interested in the

subject matter when passing the Order dated 26.12.2019. The Appellants

claim that P. Ramadoss, who continues to hold an interest in the balance

extent of the subject matter, was heard, and that the flat buyers were not

heard during the pendency of the proceedings before the CLA. The objection

on the ground of denial of opportunity is not available to the Appellants

because the Notice was issued to the person who had the Ryotwari Patta in

his favour and claimed an interest in the property.

23. It is argued that the Revenue Records do not record the subject matter

as a water body but instead record it in the names of private individuals. This

argument is far removed from the Revenue extracts on which the CLA passed

the Order dated 26.12.2019. The record filed by the State reinforces that the

subject matter has been classified as a tank/Government Poramboke in the

Revenue Records from the earliest point in time. This ground is equally

untenable and warrants rejection.

24. Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, prohibits officers from considering and

granting Ryotwari Patta for non-Ryoti land. The Legislature designed a

prohibitory mechanism to prevent changes in land classification. The said

Section even renders the Order already issued void. That being the statutory

scheme, the DRO, Tiruvallur, without any reason, went beyond the provisions

of the said Act and granted Patta.

25. The above consideration records findings on the Appellants' entitlement

to any relief in the Civil Appeals in relation to the subject matter. Other

circumstances in the matter include the grant of Permit No. C 3031 on

24.05.2005 by the Avadi Municipality for establishing the timber mart; the

revenue department changed the Town Survey Land Register and approved

the subdivision of the subject matter; the Avadi Municipality approved the

building plans for the construction of apartments; and, as per the Report

dated 09.10.2026 of the District Collector, Tiruvallur, the present existence of

apartments is to an extent of 0.22 acres. The impugned Judgment directed

the demolition of the existing structures and the restoration of the water

body.

26. In the present case, the Municipal Administration has approved and

sanctioned the building plans. The Revenue, without realising its obligation

under Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, is changing the nature in the Town

Survey Land Records. These permissions/Orders lead a bona fide purchaser

to believe that the subject matter is available and free from any objectionable

use. The Court is constrained to observe that a bona fide purchaser for

consideration looks at the presumptive value of entries and town survey

records while purchasing the property. At the government's convenience, the

nature of the land is changed. The remedies against the developer and the

landowner are independent, but the State and its officers ought not to be

allowed to pass on without paying the price for such willy-nilly felicitation by

the officers of the State.

27. 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.

In the circumstances of the case, to ameliorate the possible hardship and,

without committing a breach of Section 14-A of the Act, 1948, we direct the

Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur, to

allot a vacant, commensurate site to the owners of the flats represented by

the Society, preferably within 6 months from today, and thereafter to

undertake the demolition of the constructed area to an extent of 0.22 acres.

28. Subject to the above direction, we see no reason to interfere with the

impugned Judgment. The development work in the vacant and unoccupied

area may be completed expeditiously without hindrance. The flat owners and

the Appellant Bank are free to avail themselves of the remedies in law against

the developer/Owner/Mortgagor, as the case may be, before the Competent

Civil Court. The State Government is free to initiate or conclude disciplinary

action against the erring Officers for failing to maintain the records and water

bodies.

29. For the above consideration and reasons, the Civil Appeals are

dismissed. No order as to costs.

30. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

..……….…………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI]

...…………………………J. [N. V. ANJARIA]

New Delhi; October 16, 2026.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) DIARY NO. 47662 OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd Rep. by Its Authorized Officer …. PETITIONER Versus

The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Ors …. RESPONDENTS

FILING INDEX S PARTICULAR PAGE NO COPIES COURT No. FEE

9. Miscellaneous Document 1-2 1 Nill 10. TOTAL Nill

FILED BY:

JAYASREE NARASIMHAN Advocate for the Petitioners CC No- 2601 142, New Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Mobile No.-8826717631 Dated: 09.10.2026

FIELD MAP SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IN SURVEY NUMBER 572 OF

THIRUMULLAIVOYAL VILLAGE, AVADI TALUK AND THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

DISTRICT : THIRUVALLUR N TALUK : AVADI WARD : D BLOCK : 84 T.SNO : 4 W E T.S. OLD S.NO : 572

BLOCK:8 92.6

B :A B :B 572 26.0 26.0

B :D B :C 34.6 10.6 39.2 89.6 14.2 14.1 11.5

T.S.2 T.S. T.S. T.S.7 T.S.8

SI.no Survey Extent (Hectare/ Colour Physical Status Remarks Number cent) Remarks

. The road is being used by the general S.No: 572/1 0.09.00 Hectare (22.0 Cent) Existing Road public.

2 . S.No: 572/2 0.20.00 Hectare (50.0 Cent) All encroachments have been removed Vacant Land and the land has been retained as vacant (Part) land(Subject land involved in this case).

2 . S.No: 572/2 0.09.00 Hectare (22.0 Cent) Apartments consisting Subject land involved in this case. (Part) 20 flats All encroachments have been removed . S.No: 572/3 0.30.00 Hectare (74.0 Cent) Vacant Land and the land has been retained.

0.20.00 Hectare (50.0 Cent) A compound wall has The construction was carried out by been constructed, and the Avadi Municipal corporation. S.No: 572/2 in S.No 572/2(Part) and

4. (part) and 0.30.00 Hectare (74.0 Cent) one pit has been dug District Collector 572/3 Thiruvallur in S.No 572/3.