Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Part – I

Patta manifests two ideas:

• First, Certificate issued by the Government
• Second, ‘revenue-document-preparation‘.

Patta is a Certificate or Document issued by the Government –

• (i) to persons to whom ownership is conferred upon Govt. property, or
• (ii) to tenants/grantees of Govt. property, for cultivation, residence etc.

‘Patta’ also refers to an act of ‘revenue-document-preparation’

From the Transfer of Registry Rules made applicable in the State of Kerala (Rule 16) being says that “pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions” it is clear that ‘Patta’ refers to a unilateral act of ‘document-preparation’ by Revenue Department.

‘Patta’ or ‘Pattah’ (or ‘Pattayam’) as a Revenue-Term

• Patta, as a Revenue-Term, expresses both assignment of absolute Tile and lease or grant of licence.
• Now-a-days ‘patta’ is generally used to show confinement of Govt. land with absolute Title.
• It was used in early times to signify lease or grant (of licence) of Government-lands alone.

Patta by Sirkar in one’s name does not confer title

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 does 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)

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.

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

Gopalakrishna v. M.  Srinivas, 2010-2 Ker HC 235; 2010 2 Ker LT 216, 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 is not a document of title. 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‘.

From Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 8, it is clear that “Patta” is issued by the Government on assignment of land  including that on lease or 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.

‘Holder of property’ – ‘Pattadaran’

In Kerala, in the Land Tax Act Rules, 1972 and the Tax Receipt, describes the ‘holder of property’ as ‘Pattadaran’. It is definite that he is not the title holder.

Transfer of Registry Rules (Kerala) 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

What was ‘Patta’ In erstwhile Madras (including Malabar)?

• In the erstwhile Madras State, ‘Patta’ was originally a word connected to land-lease. “Patta” issued when Lease was made by Government

Ryotwari System in Malabar – 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.
• In S. Thenappa Chettiarv. 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. (Copy of this deed is produced in various civil cases filed by the State of Kerala, in Sub Court, Kattappana, in OS No. 12/2024.)

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)

In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, it was held as under:

• “6. … mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” (Quoted in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

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)