M/s Edelweiss Asset Construction Co. Ltd. v. R. Perumalswamy and Ors.
Background
Decades-old land in Tamil Nadu, originally acquired by the State Government in the 1960s and assigned to a company (WSIL) to build a factory, became the subject of a claim by a private individual who asserted his father had owned and leased the land to WSIL long before the state acquisition. A District Revenue Officer (DRO), acting under a 2004 government order meant only to fix clerical defects in land records, entertained this claim and ordered the land re-registered in the claimant's name. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court set this aside, but a Division Bench reinstated the DRO's order, prompting appeals by the construction company (claiming an assignment of debts) and WSIL.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the DRO had no jurisdiction to decide a genuine title dispute: his power under the 2004 government order was limited to correcting administrative defects in the land registry, not adjudicating competing ownership claims, which is a mixed question of fact and law that must go before a competent civil court. Since the land had been validly acquired by the State and assigned to WSIL via a registered 1964 deed, and the claimant had never produced his alleged 1929 sale deed or proved the alleged oral lease, his claim could not stand. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, restored the Single Judge's ruling quashing the DRO's order, and allowed both appeals (along with disposing of a connected contempt petition), while leaving open the separate, unrelated question of a pending state resumption notice against WSIL for alleged misuse of the land.
Lesson Learnt
Revenue officers empowered only to correct clerical errors in land records cannot use that limited power to decide a real ownership dispute: any genuine title contest must be fought and proven in a civil court, not resolved administratively.