SALEM MUNICIPALITY versus P. KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1223 · Decided: 15-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1223
SALEM MUNICIPALITY
v.
P. KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9-11 of 2014)
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy:
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1948: ss. 3, 11, 14-A and 64 – Lands in which ryot is entitled to
ryotwari patta – On facts, various leases granted in favour of
predecessor in title of plaintiff by the erstwhile Zamindar – Lease
deed area formed part of Tank Bund Side-Waste dry and Tank Bund-
Upper dry – Lease granted from the month of November to June
next year, to expire before the commencement of rains in July as the
land used to be submerged – Plaintiff’s case that his predecessor in
title, continued in possession of the land when the 1948 Act came
into force – Pursuant thereto, entire village, which included the
plaintiff’s land taken over by the State Government – Applications
filed by predecessor in title as also original plaintiff for grant of
Ryotwari Patta u/s. 11 – Rejection of, on the ground that land was
not ryoti land – Meanwhile, the State Government handed over
certain land including the plaintiff’s land, to the appellant for
construction of new bus stand – Suits for declaration of title and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff in respect of their land
against the State Government and the transport corporation as also
the appellant – Suits decreed by the trial court, however set aside
by the first appellate court – Second appeals, filed there against
allowed by the High Court restoring the order of the trial court –
On appeal, held: It is apparent from the leases that area in the lease
deeds formed part of the tank – As per the definition of ryoti land
in s. 3(16), the area was clearly not a ryoti land as such, the
predecessor in interest or plaintiff could not be said to be ‘ryot’
holding ‘ryoti’ land – In the absence of grant of ryotwari patta and
in view of the fact that land formed part of tank reserved for common
use, no right accrued to the plaintiff to claim ryotwari patta as his
predecessor was not ‘ryot’ and the disputed land was not ‘ryoti
Land’ – Furthermore, the vendor of the plaintiff did not hold land
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1223
1223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
for 12 continuous years – Finding recorded by the High Court as
to possession is clearly perverse – There is no evidence on record
in the form of revenue record that the plaintiff’s vendor was in
possession on the date of abolition and thereafter plaintiff remained
in possession at any point of time – Thus, no right, title or interest
accrued to the vendor of the plaintiff or to the plaintiff to obtain
any ryotwari patta or for obtaining decree in the suit – Furthermore,
s. 64 whereby right of the owner, occupier not to be affected by
temporary dispossession/discontinuance of possession renders no
help to plaintiff – Also only part of the land has been given to the
Municipality could not have been made the basis by the High Court
to derive a conclusion in favour of the plaintiff so as to buttress the
title – Approach employed by the High Court is wholly impermissible,
unsustainable, perverse and illegal – Thus, the judgment passed by
the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is
restored – As there was multiplication of various proceedings, the
cost of Rupees One Lakh imposed upon the plaintiff to be deposited
with the Welfare Fund of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record
Association – Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 – s. 3(15), (16) –
Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 114 – Costs.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam
(1985) 4 SCC 10 ; Dokiseela Ramulu v. Sri
Sangameswara Swamy Varu & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 69 ;
Beohar Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others 1970
RN 16 (Supreme Court) ; Sir Bhimeshwara Swami Varu
Temple v. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and Ors. AIR 1973
SC 1299 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 2 SCC 69
referred to
Para 23
1970 RN 16 (Supreme Court) referred to
Para 41
AIR 1973 SC 1299
referred to
Para 44
(1985) 4 SCC 10
referred to
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9-11
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2010 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal Nos. 1025, 1027 &
1028 of 2004
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1225
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 12-14 of 2014.
R. Venkataramani, Rakesh Dwivedi, Gurukrishna Kumar, Rajiv
Dutta, V. Giri, Advs., Vinodh Kanna B., A. Sriram, Siddartha Iyer, Yashraj
Bundela, Praveen Vignesh,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.