Flats built on a village pond near Avadi will come down, but only after the State gives the owners another site

Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria upheld the cancellation of a 2011 patta over a recorded tank, and directed Tamil Nadu to allot a commensurate site to flat buyers before demolition.

The 1911 resettlement register records 1.68 acres in Survey No. 572 of Thirumullaivoyal village, now in Avadi taluk of Tiruvallur district, as government poramboke: a water body known as Kanakkan Kuttai. In 2011 a District Revenue Officer granted a ryotwari patta over 72 cents of it, holding that it had never been a kuttai at all. Twenty flats were built on part of the land, and a bank lent ₹3.40 crore against it. In 2019 the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelled the patta as the product of administrative fraud, and the Madras High Court upheld that decision and directed that the structures be demolished and the water body restored. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed appeals by a flat owner and the bank. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, writing for himself and Justice N.V. Anjaria, held that Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 barred the patta, but directed that the flat owners be given another site before the flats are demolished.

From a tank to a timber mart to an apartment block

The 1948 Act abolished the old estates and introduced the ryotwari settlement, protecting a ryot's possession of "ryoti" land, meaning cultivable land held for agriculture. Its definition expressly excludes the beds and bunds of tanks and land set apart for the common use of villagers. Section 14-A, inserted in 1974, says no ryotwari patta may be granted even for a private tank or oorani, and that any patta already granted for one stands cancelled.

A minor inam adjoining the land was granted to T.N. Venugopal Pillai under Title Deed No. 300, and the tank came to be treated as appurtenant to it. His heirs sold 50 cents in 1980. In 1988 A. Palanichamy Nadar bought 72 cents. After his death his heirs released their shares to P. Ramadoss in 2004. Ramadoss ran a timber mart there, with a 2005 permit from Avadi Municipality. On 18 October 2010 he applied for the first time for a ryotwari patta, and the District Revenue Officer granted it on 21 January 2011.

Ramadoss mortgaged the 72 cents to Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank for ₹3.40 crore. He settled 22 cents on his wife, who gave a power of attorney to a builder. With subdivision and building plans approved by the municipality, the builder constructed and sold 20 flats in four blocks.

What the Commissioner found

On a third party's petition, the Commissioner of Land Administration set aside the patta on 26 December 2019. The government orders under which the patta was granted had time limits that expired in 1975 and 1977, and the limitation periods under the relevant abolition Acts ended in 1977 and 1987. An application made in 2010 was decades late, so the officer had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The land remained legally a watercourse poramboke for public and cattle use even though encroachment had made the pond invisible.

The Commissioner also found that the file had been handled irregularly. The officer passed the order without calling for any report from the Tahsildar. The application bore file number 35714/2010, but the order cited 25714/2010, a number that registers showed had been allotted to a land acquisition section. The real file was untraceable and was never sent to the record room. The Commissioner found that the order was not passed in a bona fide official capacity and directed disciplinary and criminal action against the officer and his subordinates. The bank's writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 11 July 2024 and 2 July 2025.

Why the appeals failed

The Supreme Court rejected each ground. Whether land is ryoti is decided from the earliest revenue and settlement records, and the appellants did not claim that those records ever showed this land as ryoti. A patta under the 1948 Act is available only for ryoti land. The Court relied on its earlier decision about a tank in Salem, where land recorded as a tank and reserved for common use was held incapable of supporting any ryot's patta.

The fact that the area had been notified as a mixed residential zone under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 made no difference. Zoning governs development across an area. It does not extinguish the Government's rights in poramboke land, forests or water bodies, and it cannot override Section 14-A.

The complaint that the bank and the flat owners were not heard failed because notice had gone to Ramadoss, the patta holder, who claimed the interest in the land. The argument that the revenue records showed private names, not a water body, was contradicted by the State's records, which classified the land as a tank and government poramboke from the earliest point. Section 14-A, the Court held, sets up a statutory bar against changing a tank's classification, and it renders void any patta already granted. The officer went beyond the Act without giving any reason.

The State pays for its officers' entries

The Court did not leave the flat owners without a remedy. The municipality had approved building plans, and the revenue department had changed the town survey records and approved the subdivision, without any regard to its duty under Section 14-A. A bona fide purchaser, the Court said, relies on those entries when buying. Remedies against the developer and the landowner are separate, but the State and its officers should not be allowed to escape the consequences of having facilitated this so casually. Ordering demolition without regard to the owners' hardship would cause them irreparable financial injury and leave families on the street. According to the District Collector's report of 9 October 2026, the apartments occupy 22 cents. Encroachments on the rest have been cleared, part of the land is vacant, and a compound wall has been built.

Order

The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector of Tiruvallur to allot a vacant, commensurate site to the flat owners, through their society, preferably within six months, and only then to demolish the structures on the 22 cents. Subject to that, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, and work on the vacant land may proceed without hindrance. The flat owners and the bank may pursue their remedies against the developer, the owner and the mortgagor in the civil courts, and the State may take disciplinary action against the officers responsible. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.