What is Patta or Pattayam?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Part – I

Patta manifests two ideas:

  • First, Title-Certificate issued by the Government
  • Second, mere revenue -document prepared for collecting tax.

Even when Patta is referred to as a Title Certificate it denotes –

  • (i) either conferment of ownership upon Govt. property,
  • (ii) or recognition of tenancy/granteeship/licence on Govt. property, for cultivation, residence etc.

Patta was ‘Rent-Deed’ in the 1st Regulation on Land Matters

The first Regulation of Madras Presidency in which Patta is referred to is the Permanent Settlement Regulation, No. 25 of 1802. Section 14 of the regulation reads as under:

  • “Zamindars or landholders shall enter into engagements with their ryots for rent, either in money or in kind, and shall within a reasonable period of time grant to each ryot a patta or kaul defining the amount to be paid by him and explaining every condition of the engagement. And the said Zamindars or land- holders shall grant regular receipts to the ryots for discharges in money or in kind, made by the ryots on account of the Zamindars.”  (See: Land Law in Madras Presidency, BR Chakravarthy, 1927, page62)

In State of Madras v. Parisutha Nadar, 1961-74 LW 338; 1961-2 MLJ 285, it was observed as under:

  • “The Act (Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act) does not create new rights of ownership and the grant of ryotwari patta under the Act is not a conferment of rights by way of grant or conveyance. The obtaining of ryotwari patta by the persons entitled to such patta under the Act, can if at all be only in recognition of pre-existing rights of ownership. A ryotwari patta granted by the Revenue authorities in respect of lands in a Government village is not a title deed but is only a bill for rent.” (Quoted in: T. M. Laksminarayana Ayyar v. Nallachi Ammal, 1974-1 MLJ 424; The State of Madras v. Ramalingaswamigal Madam, 1969 2 MLJ 281)

Patta Regulation of 1802

Land Law in Madras Presidency, BR Chakravarthy, 1927, page65 reads as under:

  • “Regulation 30 is the well-known patta regulation of 1802. The preamble to the regulation stated, that it was necessary that the terms of the holding between the landholder and the ryots should be reduced to writing.
  • Section 2 provided, that the landholders and the ryots should exchange written engagements containing the terms of the holding that given by the landholder being called the patta and the counter-part executed by the ryot being called the muchilika. Section 3 described the contents of these documents – the patta and the muchilika. The patta should contain a description of the property, the terms of the holding, such as the rent payable by the ryot and the time or duration of the tenure. These pattas and muchilikas must be registered in the office of the Kernam.”

In Earlier times, Pattah was Not Considered as a Document of Title

In Narayan Madhavan v. Kumaran Velayudhan, XV (1900) TLR 187 (Travancore Law Reports), it was observed as under:

  • “The grant of Pattah is merely for convenience of Government for purpose of revenue and confers no title not previously possessed.”

The Secretary of State for India v. T. V.  Raghavachariar, 83 IndCas 1009; 1924 20 LW 815; 1924-47 MLJ 503, it is observed as under:

  • “15. I should have thought that it was well-known law that a patta is not a document of title, or a deed of grant.
    • See: The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Kasturi Reddi, (1902) ILR 26 M 268. and
    • Muthu Veera Vandayan v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1906) ILR 29 M 461.
  • It is a record of demand by Government that such and such an amount is due as land revenue on such and such an area. Plaintiff admitted before us, when pressed, that the stream in question within Survey Nos. 13, 14 and 17 was Government property prior to the grant of patta to his vendor. It follows that neither his vendor nor himself has succeeded to the ownership of that portion of the stream unless the grant of patta or the grant of these survey numhers on darkhast* somehow carried with it also the transfer of ownership of that portion of the stream. As noted, the patta implies no such grant, and plaintiff has not chosen to produce or call for the darkhast records. I wholly fail then to find any proof that the ownership of Government admitted prior to the darkhast has been lost by Government.
  • *’darkhast’ refers to ‘application’.

In The Official Assignee of Madras v. Basudevadoss Badrinarayan Doss, 1925-21 LW 538; 1925-48 MLJ 423, it is pointed out as under:

  • “It is quite true that a patta is not a title deed in all senses of that expression or for all purposes …”

Patta is not a document of title. It can only be evidence title

As time went on, the courts began to value patta more, and recognised it as a document of title,  although it was not acknowledged as a title deed, as such.

In The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Reddipalle Hussain Saheb,  AIR 1940 Mad 788; 1940-52 LW 205; 1940-2 MLJ 13, it is stated as under:

  • “2. In appeal, the learned District Judge disposed of the matter briefly by saying that a patta was not a document of title but was a mere bill for rent or tax which, being of little or no value, proved nothing. As that was the only evidence on which the Government could rely, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.
  • 3. With due deference to the opinion of the learned District Judge, I do not consider that a patta is quite such a valueless document as he thinks. As was pointed out by Srinivasa Ayyangar, J. in The Official Assignee of Madras v. Badri Narayan Doss (1924) 48 M.L.J. 423: I.L.R. 48 Mad. 454, although a patta is not a title deed, it is a document of title, to which great weight is generally given both by the possessor and by the Government. It is true that a patta is not a title deed in the sense of a document, the grant of which conclusively passes title from the Government to the pattadar; but with regard to a first grant, at any rate, a patta is granted as a matter of course to the person to whom the Government has granted the land. The value of a patta generally comes up for consideration in proceedings between the pattadar and a third party; but as between the Government and the pattadar, a patta clearly has a greater value. The Government cannot say that the pattadar is not entitled to the land or the trees granted under the patta nor can the pattadar say that he is not holding title from the Government. A tree patta, moreover, differs from an ordinary ryotwari patta in being more in the nature of a lease, which was the original meaning of the word patta.”

Gopalakrishna v. M.  Srinivas, 2010-2 Ker HC 235; 2010 2 Ker LT 216 (Thomas P. Joseph, J.), is pointed out to show Patta is not a document of title; but, it can only be evidence title. It reads as under:

  • “Exhibit A5, copy of Patta is produced to show that the said property belonged to one Sarojini Amma. Patta is not a document of title. It can only be evidence title .”

Patta by Sirkar in one’s name does not Confer Title

Patta As Such Does Not Confer Title/Ownership

In Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, AIR 2023 SC 379; 2023-1 SCR 355, our Apex Court noticed the fact that a lease can be given on ‘Deed of Patta’ when referred to “demarcation of land given on lease vide the Deed of Patta”.

In Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op.  Housing Society Ltd. , AIR 2014 SC 937; 2014-2 SCC 269, it is said as under:

  •  “18. The Plaintiff has also maintained the stand that their predecessor-in- interest was the Pattadar of the suit land. In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such does not confer title. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer & Manager, APIIC Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 361 and Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu & Ors. (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 228.
  • 20. We are of the view that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. Ext.X-1 is Classer Register of 1347 which according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the plaintiff’s vendor’s property. We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the plaintiff’s predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased.”

In Amba Thampuratti v. Kerala Varma Thampuran, 1954  Ker LT 700, it was pointed out that ‘the Patta did not confer any title’. In Parukutti Amma v. Sundara Ayyar (1949 TCLR 59) the Travancore-Cochin High Court held that the issue of patta by Sirkar in one’s name did not confer title to the property, if he had not already obtained title to it. (Referred to in: Narayana Iyer v. Vella, 1988-1 Ker LJ 231; 1988-1 Ker LT 856)

Patta is not a document of title. It only evidences title

Aiysumma v. Mariyamma, 1994-1 KLT 570 (TL Viswanatha Iyer, J.), it is held as under:

  • “Patta by itself does not confer any title. … but only an evidence of title.”

It had been held in Mooka Kone v. Ammnakutti Ammal, AIR 1928 Mad 299 (FB ) as under:

  • “Patta would at least have served as some evidence of possession, although a patta by itself cannot be regarded as a document or evidence of title or a title-deed.  (Referred to in: Mathaluru Bajjappa v. Madamanchi Venkanna, AIR 1960 AP 397.)

In Periyaayya v. R.  Pitchaimuthu, 04 Jul 2019, 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1116, it is held as under:

  • “Though patta is not a document of title, patta can be accepted as an evidence for possession.”

In L.  Duraivel v. N.  Padmavathy, 2023-3 LW 202 (Mad), it is held as under:

  • “It is true that patta is not a document of title. However, patta can still be an evidence to show ones prima facie title and enjoyment particularly when the person disputing the title is unable to produce any material evidence to contradict or controvert such revenue documents.”

Patta – Not A Document of Title; it Establishes Possession

In M. Karuppiah Thevar v. John Victor (Mad), 2017-1 CTC 67, it is held as under:

  • “Though it is a well settled proposition of law that patta is not a document of title and it can only be a piece of evidence to establish one’s possession in a case where there is no rival claim.”

Patta is not a document of title. Still, it can be Mortgaged as Title-Deed u/s. 58, TP Act

In Angu Pillai v. M.S.M. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar, AIR 1974 Mad 16, it was noticed as under:

  • “15.In Indian law, deposit of patta has been held to constitute a valid equitable mortgage, though patta is not in itself a deed of title, but is only an evidence of title. This Court has consistently taken the view that the main object of tender of patta is merely to give information of the land revenue payable and the details of the property and that the exact weight to be given to the patta would depend upon the circumstances of the case. In Dohganna v. Jammanna, AIR 1931 Mad 613 it is pointed out that in case of pattas in respect of a land in Zamindari, if the land be at the disposal of the landlord at the time of granting the patta, prima facie such patta would not be mere bill of rent but something more and that if it is not so it would not create any rights in the pattadar in derogation of the rights of a person who would be entitled to the land subject to the proper and regular payment of rent. The question directly arose before a Bench of this Court in Official Assignee v. Basudevadoss, AIR 1925 Mad 723, as to whether a deposit of patta is enough to constitute an equitable mortgage. The Bench answered the question in the affirmative. Srinivasa Aiyangar, J. who delivered the leading judgment in that case, has pointed out that the answer to the question as to whether the pattas in respect of a land is a document which would be sufficient, by being deposited, to evidence the intention required for an equitable mortgage would vary according to the conditions of the country and the consciousness on the part of the members of the community and that though a patta is not a document of title still a deposit of the same with intent to create an equitable mortgage would create an equitable mortgage.” (Quoted with approval in: Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer,  AIR 2007 AIR SC 3169; 2007-8 SCC 361)

Not to Set Aside Patta; for, Patta was Prepared not after hearing

In Godavarma Valia Raja v. Bhoothi Swamiyar,  AIR 1952 TC/Ker 408, ir is observed as under:

  • Therefore, so far as the assessment is concerned it was not at all necessary to set aside the order of the Settlement Officer. It is only in case the Devaswom impeaches the order in so far as it refused to issue patta in favour of the Devaswom for some of the properties claimed by it that the Devaswom would be bound to set aside the order. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the plaintiff was bound to set aside the decision of the settlement Officer mentioned in the notice, Ex. VIII. The further question for consideration is whether the plaintiff was bound to set aside the patta, Ex. G. There is nothing to show that the patta was prepared after hearing the plaintiff or after giving him an opportunity to show cause why the assessment should not be fixed in the manner in which it was fixed in Ex. G. The preparation of the patta appears to have been a mere executive order of the Settlement Officer. It was not an order passed between two parties. Again, even if the declaration asked for in the plaint is allowed it will not have the effect of setting aside the patta. It will only have the effect of correcting the patta with respect to the assessment.”

Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960

The Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, Sec. 8 shows that ‘Pattah is a document evidencing the assignment of Government land or of any interest therein’. Sec. 2(2) denotes that ‘assignment includes a transfer of land by way of lease and a grant of licence‘.

Section 2(2) of the Land Assignment Act, 1960 reads as under:

  • “2. Definitions.- (1) ….
    • (2). In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) assignment includes a transfer of land by way of lease and a grant of licence for the use of land.”

Section 8 of the Land Assignment Act, 1960 reads as under:

  • “8. Assignment to take effect with restrictions, conditions, etc., according to their tenor .- All the provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any Pattah or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land or of any interest therein shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any custom or contract to the contrary.”

Following decisions speak as to patta issued to Tenants –

  • Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala, AIR  2009 SC 1573
  • Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal, AIR  2000 SC 1808
  • Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd Vs. State of TN, AIR  2010 SC 795 (Ryotwari Patta).
  • Harska Trust v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345
  • M Chinnathambi Alias Muthiah Vs. Ponnathal, 2010-1 Mad WN 725;
  • Umapathi, K.  Vs. Addl. Collector, Thanjavur, 2000-2 Mad LJ 725
  • KS Shanthilal Vs. Sarojini Ammal, 1996-1 Mad LJ 562, (Ryotwari Patta)

Lessee is Referred to as Pattadhar

  • In Revenue documents (‘record of rights’) of various States in India, the lessee is referred to as pattadhar.
  • Several enactments, relating to revenue, also refer patta as lease-document.

Who is a Pattadar in a Revenue Document?

Is he the Real Owner?

‘Holder of property’ – ‘Pattadaran’. In Kerala, under the Land Tax Act Rules, 1972, and the Tax Receipt, the ‘holder of property’ is described as ‘Pattadaran’. It is definite – he need not be the title holder.

In Mathai Kitho v. Godananda Brahmananda Boothi Swamiar, 1956 KLT 313, the suit was filed by the owner (before the revenue sale). But, the “Patta” stood in the name of the “kanamdar. The properly was subjected to a revenue sale, proceeding against Pattadar. It was held as under:

  • “4. …Kanomdar, was the pattadar i.e., the registeted holder, of the property. For purposes of the Revenue Recovery Act, the registered holder for the time being of the property is the “land holder” … Even if the registered holder is not the real owner of the property, for purposes of the Revenue Recovery Act he, and he alone, can be treated as the landholder or owner, and a sale after notice to him will convey not merely the rights which he in fact has in respect of the property but the full ownership of the property…”

The following decisions were relied on:

  • Thoma Varkey v. The Dewan of Travancore, XXVII T.L.J. 13,
  • Mathew v. The Dewan of Travancore, XXXII TLJ 160,
  • Varkey v. The Dewan of Travancore, XXXII T.L.J. 325,
  • Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama, ILR VII Madras 405,
  • Eravi Pillai Krishna Pillai v. Maluk Mohamed Sahul Hameed, 1953 KLT 802.

Pokkuvaravu Rules, 1921 and Settlement Pattas

The Pokkuvaravu Rules, dated 6th March 1921, provided as follows:

  • “6. The Settlement Department having issued pattas at the Settlement to all holders of land liable to the payment of revenue, all changes subsequent to Settlement have to be brought to book in order to keep the land revenue accounts up to date. The process by which these changes or mutations of names are ascertained and recorded in the Government accounts is known as Pokkuvaravu.”
  • “8. Pokkuvaravu or transfer of registry falls under three clauses :
  •        (a) by voluntary transfer;
  •        (b) by decree of court or by Revenue sale ;
  •        (c) by succession.”
  • Rule 6 and 8 quoted in: Kochu Narayanan v. Janaki Amma, ILR 1962-2 (Ker) 302; 1962 KLJ 951.

Transfer of Registry Rules (Kerala)

The Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, replaced Pokkuvaravu Rules, 1921.

Rule 15 of the Transfer of Registry reads thus:

  • “15. With the help of the details furnished in the statement in Form ‘A’ prepared by the Village Officers and such further information as the Tahsildar may receive from parties and village officials at the time of enquiry regarding the fact of possession and enjoyment, payment of tax and other particulars, the Tahsildar shall determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties as it is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) upto date and bring into it the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land. (Quoted in: Rahulan v. Tahasildar, 2021-4 KHC 562; 2021-4 KLT 689)

Rule 16 reads as under:

  • “16. The summary enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.”(Quoted in: Mohandas N. S v. Tahsildar Kanayannur Taluk Office, 2020-6 KLT 554)

Therefore, it is clear that (here) ‘Patta’ refers to a document unilaterally prepared by the Revenue Department.

This rule makes it clear – Patta and Title stand for Different Concepts. In Moideen v. Village Officer, 9 January, 2019 (Alexander Thomas, J.) Kerala High Court pointed out with reference to Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules that the mutation or acceptance of basic land tax, by itself, will not confer or extinguish title and that in accordance with the decisions of the Civil Court pattas will be revised from time to time. Rule 16 of the Transfer Registry Rules reads as under:

  • “The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.”

Significance of Patta – Possession, though not Title

In Sankaran v. Rajamma, AIR 1975 Ker 155,it is held as under:

  • “On the basis of the Court sale and delivery, the plaintiff has obtained patta in her name. Though patta is never conclusive evidence of title or possession, it certainly should be given due weight in considering the question of possession. Mutation in the registry is not without any significance. Official acts are presumed to be properly done unless proved otherwise. Therefore, I do not think the Courts below committed any error in this respect.”

Part – II

Patta in Madras Presidency

Following early decisions makes it clear that Patta is the document issued to the tenants by the landholders.

1. Vellayan Chetti v. Tiruvakone, 1882-5 ILR(Mad) 76

  • (The earliest legislation respecting the granting of pattas by landlords to tenants in this Presidency is to be found in Regulation XXV of 1802, which introduced the permanent assessment. The 14th section of that Regulation required “Zamindars” and ‘ Landholders'” to enter into engagements with their raiyats for a rent and within a reasonable time to grant to each raiyat a patta or cowle defining the amount to be paid by him and explaining every condition of the engagement and to give receipts for all payments made to them by their raiyats, and it declared a Zamindar, who, after the expiry of a reasonable time from the execution of a kabulyat, should neglect or refuse to comply with the demands of his under-farmers or raiyats for pattas or receipts, liable to a suit for damages in the Civil Court.)

2. Krishnasami Pillai v. Varadaraja Ayyangar, 1882-5 ILR (Mad) 345

  • (Patta is applied to describe the lease granted to a cultivator and, in this Presidency, the revenue engagement of a raiyat.)

Palaniappa v. Raya, 1883-7 ILR (Mad) 325

  • (Patta prescribes payment of the revenue, and, having regard to the terms of the inam grant, the patta must embrace the share of the Government as well as of inamdar.)

3. Theivu Pandithan v. Secretary of State For India, 1898-21 ILR(Mad) 433

4. Panduranga Pai and Kuchur Subba Row v. The Secretary of State for India in Council, 1905-15 MLJ 147

Patta in Estates Land Act, 1908

As shown above, patta was not a document of title, or a deed of grant in the erstwhile Madras State. (It is so observed in Secretary of State for India v. T. V.  Raghavachariar, 83 IndCas 1009; 1924 20 LW 815; 1924-47 MLJ 503, also.) The landholders had to issue pattas (rent deeds) and the ryots had to pay muchilikas (rent/rent receipt). They were to be exchanged ‘yearly basis’. (See: Land Law in Madras Presidency, BR Chakravarthy, 1927) Going by Estates Land Act, 1908, ‘Patta’ was originally a word connected to land-lease.

‘Patta‘ is issued by Landholder to Ryot, stating rate of Rent

  • As per Sec. 50, 51 and 52 of the Estates Land Act, 1908 ‘Patta‘ was a document issued by the landholder (person owning land and entitled to collect rent) to the ryot (person holds ryoti land on condition to pay rent) stating rate of rent, among other things, for the period, usually, one year.

Rayotwari Patta in Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rayotwari) Act, 1948

  • Under Sec 11 of the Act every ryot would be entitled for Rayotwari Patta.
  • Note: A ryotwari pattadar was not a proprietor of land in its full sense, but only a tenant.

Ryotwari System in Malabar  –

In ‘Land Law in Madras Presidency’, BR Chakravarthy, 1927, it is said as under:

  • “The land Revenue settlement in Malabar differed from the ordinary ryotwari settlement in the rest of the presidency, in that in Malabar. The existence of a landlord between the state and the actual cultivator is recognised in the theoretical distribution of the produce, on which the rates of assessment are based.”

The tradition as regards the Malabar-land is pointed out by Chkravarthy as under:

  • “The tradition with regard to Malabar is that the God Parasurama, who created it, granted it to a set of Brahmins to be held by them tax free; that accordingly these Brahmins held and cultivated the lands, without -even the obligation to pay any tax”.

Lease by Government, under Pattas

  • Sir Thomas Munro, Madras Governor, introduced ryotwari system throughout the Madras Presidency in 1820.  
  • Under the ryotwari system, land was given on lease by the government to the ryot under a patta.
  • A ryotwari pattadar was not a proprietor of land in its full sense, but only a tenant.
  • British Government collected taxes directly from the peasants. The rate of tax was 50% in dry-lands and 60% in irrigated land.

“Record of Rights” in Madras Presidency

In ‘Land Law in Madras Presidency’, 1927, BR Chakravarthy says as regards the first larger step for survey of lands as under:

  • “Record of Rights: The Local Government may make up order directing that a Survey be made and a. Record of Rights prepared by a revenue officer in respect of any estate or part there-of in the following cases.
  • (l) Where an application is made by the landholder or landholders, if there are more than one, and of the ryots;
  • (2) Where the Local Government considers, that the preparation of a record is necessary for securing the rights of the landholder; and of the ryots and for preventing disputes arising between them;
  • (3) Where an estate is managed by the Government or is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards.
  • The first step in the preparation of the Record, will be a survey of the lands under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act 1897; the next step will be, if the Government so directs, to inquire into the rights and obligations of the ryots and of the landholder in respect of the several holdings. ‘When both these steps are completed, a preliminary record will be made of the results of the inquiries and of the survey by the Revenue Officer in .charge and published in such manner and for such period as the Government may direct. During the period of publication, all objections to any entries or omissions in the Record will be heard and determined by the Revenue Officer himself, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government.”

‘Ryotwari’ Land also included in ‘Estate’ in Article 31A

In S. Thenappa Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1986 SC 1117, it was held, following Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 161, that the expression ‘estate’ in Article 31A included ‘ryotwari’ land also by virtue of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution on June 20, 1964 with retrospective effect.

Part – III

In Travancore & Cochin – “Patta” denoted both Lease and Janmam

‘Patta’ was originally used in Travancore and Cochin also to denote Government-recognition of ‘holding’ lands, other than that with ‘ownership’ or ‘janmam’ rights; and subsequently it had been used for both lease, grant/licence and Janmam lands.

In the 1910 Indenture executed by an English citizen, Henry Mansfield Knight, in favour of Malayalam Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. it is seen stated that the vendor (HM Knight) obtained land (Gudempara Estate) under ‘Pattas’ of 1907 and 1909 from the Travancore government subject to ‘terms conditions and covenants’ and also subject to ‘assessment’, for a period of 20/30 years. The indenture also provided for applying and obtaining ‘grant or title deed’ by the purchaser (from the Government). From this deed it can be seen that it conferred only lesser right than lease/grant.

In Harska Trust v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, it is pointed out as under –

  • ‘According to the petitioners, the issue of the Patta under that Act in respect of these lands was something duly done and the repeal of the Act cannot in any way affect the right granted under that Patta, namely, the right to continue in possession of the lands till the end of 1144 on payment of Rs. 2,665 (about) per year as rent against the basic tax now demanded of over Rs. 12,000 per year’.

Part – IV

Presumptions in Favour of Govt. Lands

(a) There is a presumption in favour of Government – all lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the Government.

(b) In order to defeat the title of the Government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the Government.

(c) In Pierce Lessley & Company Ltd. v. Violet Ouchterlong Waoshare, AIR 1969 SC 843, it was held as under –

  • “In this country escheat is not based on artificial rules of common law; and is not an incident of feudal tenure.  It is incident sovereignty and rests on principle of ultimate ownership by the State of all property within the jurisdiction.”

(d) In Chotte Khan v. Muhammed Obedulla Khan, AIR 1953 Nag. 361, held

  • “the State is the ultimate owner of all property situate within its boundaries”.

(e) In Ameer Hussain v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1978 RD 204, 1977 AWC 1, it is held that it would be deemed that the disputed land vested in State and if the other side fails, in law,  it would be taken that the land was vested in State. (Followed in: Mohd. Shafiq v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, 2011-9 ADJ 24)

(f)  In R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203, it was held as under:

  • “15. …… All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the government, is not available to any person or individual.

(g) The law as to title of property is laid down in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012(8) SCC 148 as under –

  • “The appellate courts examined the title of Government instead the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.  Such a course was not warranted.  The title of Government cannot be disputed.  In any event, possession of Government for decades is not disputed.  The plaintiff shifted the case from time to time; but failed to prove his title……….   The said courts did not realize that this was not the issue to be determined, rather the issue had been as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit-land.”

(h) In Government of Kerala v. Joseph, AIR 2023 SC 3988 – It was pointed out –

  • “When the land subject to proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to Government, the court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection as it may lead to destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property.”

(i) In R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203, it was held as under:

  • “15. Suits for declaration of title against the government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects.
  • The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the government, is not available to any person or individual. …”

(j) In State of Kerala v. Pathrose Mathai, 1970 Ker LJ 517; 1969 KerLT 507, it was held as under:

  • “There is also no presumption that a person who enters Government land, improves the same & keeps possession, is exercising acts hostile to the title of the State. This is because it is not uncommon for persons to enter upon Government land & reclain and improve such land in the hope of ultimately getting registry or lease of such land.”

Period of Limitation – 30 years

R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203, continues (as regards period of limitation) as under:

  • ” … The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession have to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against government. This follows from Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire state and it is not always possible for the government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the government.
  • Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.
  • 16. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years.
  • In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted.

‘Mutation’ Only for Fiscal Purposes; Legal Rights are subject civil court decision

Following propositions can be culled out from the very rules of The Transfer of Registry Rules made applicable in the State of Kerala (Rule 15 and 16):

  1. It is the duty of the Tahsildar to determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made.
  2. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) up to date.
  3. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department bring into the thandaper accounts (Chitta) the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land.
  4. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties.
  5. Only a summary enquiry is to be made by the Revenue authorities.
  6. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes.
  7. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon do not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases.
  8. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts.
  9. And, pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.

In Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 223, it was held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 it was held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278, and Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802)

In Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49, it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

Part – IV

Does the Principle ‘Possession Follows Title’ Applies to Govt. Property?

It is so held in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collectors, AIR 2003 SC 1805.

  • But, it is held it does not apply in the following situations-
  • The facts (on title/possession) are known (M.  Siddiq   v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1)
  • There is evidence of independent possession/title (Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 717).

Contra view

  • Mutation will not confer ‘title’ (see notes below)
  • Revenue Records Do Not Confer Presumptive Value on Title (see notes below).

Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collectors, AIR 2003 SC 1805

It is held in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collectors, AIR 2003 SC 1805, that Section 110 embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership, and that the presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted-

  • “when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title”.

The Supreme Court observed further as under:

  • “Section 110 of the Evidence Act reads thus:
    • “110. Burden of proof as to ownership.-When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”
  • It embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.
  • This Court in Nair Service Society Limited v. K.C. Alexander and Ors., A.I.R. (1968) S.C. 1165 observed,
    • “the possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known, when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.”
  • The pattedars proved their possession of the lands in question from 1312 Fasli (1902 A.D.) as pattedars. There is long and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question but no proof of conferment of patta on the late Raja and the facts relating to acquisition of title are not known. The appellant- State could not prove its title to the lands. On these facts, the presumption under Section 110  of the Evidence Act applies and the appellants have to prove that the pattedars are not the owners. The appellants placed no evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the pattedars, title to the land in question has to be upheld.”

When the principles in Sec. 110 and 114 CANNOT be invoked

As we find in M.  Siddiq  v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case), 2020-1 SCC 1, Section 110 or the principle ‘title follows possession‘ applies when the facts disclose no title in either of the disputants in which case, possession alone decides (presumption cannot be invoked when the facts are known). But, with respect to the principle ‘possession follows title‘, as we find in Anathula Sudhakar  v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, if only title is proved by one party, then only the principle ‘possession follows title’ comes in.

It is equally important that both these principles on presumption, ‘possession follows title’ and ‘title follows possession’, cannot be invoked in cases where:

  • (i) the defendants do not claim title/possession to the suit property (Devasia @ Kutty v. Jose, 2014-4 KLJ 41; 2014-3 KLT(SN) 50).
  • (ii) the facts (on title/possession) are known (M.  Siddiq   v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1), or
  • there is evidence of independent possession/title (Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 717).

Mutation will not confer ‘title’

It is a settled proposition of law (i) that the mutation entry in revenue documents will not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any person and (ii) that the mutation in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. After pointing out these legal propositions it is observed in Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, as under:

  • “6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
  • 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

Revenue Records Do Not Confer Presumptive Value on Title

The Supreme Court in  Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import and Export Company (2019) and Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagra Palike vs Faraulla Khan (2021)observed that mutation in revenue records will not confer or lose title (Relied on Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 137,  Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 591).

As pointed out above, it is observed by the Apex Court in State of AP v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319 that a revenue record is not a document of title; it merely raises a presumption in regard to possession (Quoted in M.  Siddiq   v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1). The argument as to ownership based upon entries in the revenue records had been negated in Prahlad Pradhan  v. Sonu Kumhar,(2019) 10 SCC 259. It was held that the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. (Quoted in Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (SC): 2021)

Read Connected Blogs:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Power of attorney

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Will

Arbitration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment