THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFJCE, THANJORE & ORS. versus G. THAMBIDURAI & ANOTJIER
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 1, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 4 S.CR. I 
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFJCE, THANJORE & ORS. 
A 
v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANOTJiER 
(Civil Appeal No. 6435 of 2017) .. 
MAY09,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] c.7" 
Revenue Standing Orders: 
RSO 45 ~ [-and in question taken over. by Government in the 
year 1935, for non-payment of land tax and converted into 'bought 
B 
in' land_,,_ Later further converted into 'Punjai Tharisu' (Government _ c 
pry) fallow land - In the year 1958, the land was assigned by the 
Government to third parties - The assig111i1ents were cancelled at 
the .instance of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff (claiiniilg to be the . 
so.le legal heir. to the land) - In, the year 1981, the. responde11t no .. 11 
plaintiff offered to pay the arrears of land tax for. restoration of 
land to him -,- Thereafter respondent no. 1 iplaintiff filed suit taking 
D 
the. ground that in view of RSO 45 (4), land could be reassigned to 
him or his legal heirs in preference to others, on payment of dues -
Suit decreed by trial court - Decree set aside by appellate court -
High Court affirmed the order of trial court and directed the revenue 
authorities to restore the land in question to the respondent no .. 11 
E 
plaintiff and to mutate the land in his name - On appeal, held: To 
avail the preferenq_e in the matter of assignment of 'bought in' lands, 
the obligatory pre-requisite is the absence of wilful default in the 
payment of land tax by the original owner; that the default was due 
to the
circumstances beyond his control; and that assignment to him 
again is otherwise unobjectionable - In the present case, there is 
F 
no evidence to the effect that the respondent no. I/plaintiff fulfilled 
the three pre-requisites so as to render him preferable to others for· 
assignment .of the 'bought in' land - The huge delay on the part of 
the respondent no. ]/plaintiff in clearing off the .. arrears also goes . 
against him - Hence,· the respondent no. I/plaintiff is not entitled to.. 
G 
preference contemplated in RSO 45 (4) - Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Recovery Act, 1864. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Revenue Standing Orders of the ~oard of 
Revenue, inter alia, outline the general procedure under the Tamil 
H 
I
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for realization of the arrears 
of land revenue and incidentals thereto. RSO 45, the pivotal 
provision for the present adjudication is an integral part of the 
said process. RSO 45 provides that if no bid is made in any sale 
of any land for realization of such 31-rears of land revenue etc., it 
should be purchased on behalf of the Government at a nominal 
price, the amount of the purchase money being written off the 
accounts as an irrecoverable arrears with the sanction of the 
competent authority and thereafter as per ft.SO 45(2), the 
Government would have an absolute right to lands purchased by 
it and consequently such land would not be treated as a village 
waste available for occupation by ryots or without darkhast, but 
has to be entered in a Taluka Register No.ISA and would not be 
dealt with under the Darkhast Rules and that any unauthorized 
entry upon it would render the trespasser liable. [Para 19] (11-
F-H; 12-A] 
2. To avail the preference in the matter of assignment of 
"bought in" lands, the obligatory pre-requisite is the absence of 
willful default in the payment of land tax by the original owner. 
Further the default, if any, was due to circumstances beyond his 
control and that assignment to him again is otherwise 
unobjectionable. It is only when these pre-conditions exist and 
the assigning authority is satisfied that the original owner was 
not a
willfUl defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances 
beyond the defaulter's control and that such assignment is 
otherwise unobjectionable that the original owners or their 
undisputed heirs would have to be preferred to the outsiders. If 
it is not proved to the satisfaction of the assigning authority that 
the original owner was neither a willful defaulter nor was the 
default due to circumstance beyond his control and that. the 
assignment proposed is otherwise not objectionable, Jhe 
subsequent steps as outlined in RSO 45(4) with regard thereto 
in favour of such assignment would be wholly impertinent. 
In 
absence of these contingencies, the concerned authority is under 
no obligation to issue notice either to the original owners or 
their undisputed heir(s) informing him/them that the land would 
be reassigned to him/them if he/they pay the arrears, back 
assessment, back balance of loan, if any etc. on their application 
to the Tahsildar to the said effect. [Para 21] [16-A-E]
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. 
3. The eventuality of a fresh sale would occur in case, in 
response to such notice, no application for reassignment is 
received from the original owner or his undisputed heir or if he/ 
they inform the Tahsildar that he/they do not desire to have the 
land back. Here again, the Revisional Divisional Officer, at his 
discretion and if he is satisfied that the fresh sale would not fetch 
more than Rs.10 per acre, would refrain from undertaking that 
exercise and instead direct that the land be struck off in the Taluk 
Register No.ISA and classed as ordinary village waste. [Para 21] 
[16-F] 
4. It w9uld be incumbent upon the respondent No.l/plaintiff 
in order to prove his .entitlement for such preference, to establish 
that the original owner, when the land was ''.bought in" by the 
Government, was not a willful defaulter of the land tax and that 
the default was due to circumstances beyond his control and that 
the assignment is otherwise unobjectionable to the satisfaction 
of the assigning authority. In the absence of the discharge of this 
otherwise statutorily prescribed obligation, it would be idle for 
him to contend that he was, even sans the same, entitled to be 
preferred in the matter of assignment of the "bought in" land 
merely on the cancellation of the previous assignment in favour 
of 'K' and 'M'. [Para 22] [17-B-D] 
5. No evidence is forthcoming of any endeavour made by 
respondent
No.l/plaintiff to this effect or the satisfaction of the 
assigning authority on these three otherwise inalienable aspects 
so as to render him preferable to others for the assignment of 
the "bought in" land. The respondent'No.l/plilintiff:admits that 
the land was "bought in" by the Govetnment in the year 1935 in 
view of the failure to pay the land tax. To reiterate, this process 
had not been objected to until the suit was filed in the year 2005. 
In any view of the matter, any demurral to this process of faking 
over of the land in 1935, even if made in the year 2005 in the suit, 
3 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
can by no nieans be taken of cognizance of or be entertained. As 
G 
a matter of fact, PWl (respondent No.1/plaintift) did admit that. 
the land was auctioned for failure to pay the land revenue and it 
was essentially therefore his burden to also establish that such 
default was not willful and was due to circumstances beyond his 
control and that the assignment to him was otherwise not 
objectionable, as obligated by RSO 45(4). The belated willingness 
H
4 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of respondent No.1/plaintiff to clear the arrear land tax post" 1958 
·also does not further his case in this regard;· On ti1e other hand, 
. it would be permissible' to deduce that the inactive, casual and 
passive ·disposition' of the respondent No.I/plaintiff to offer 
payment of the arrears due iinmediate1y after 1935, till at least 
~30 years hence, demonstrates not only a willful default in' that 
· B 
regard but also a persistent unwillingness to clear the outstanding 
dues, which in terms of RSO ·45(4) disqualifies him to avail any 
preference in the matter of assignment of the "bought in" lands. 
C, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[Para 23] (17-E; 18-B-E] 
; 
6, Jt is the foundationa' prln.ciple of law that if the manner 
of doing a particular act is pr~scribed under a.ny statute, the act 
must be done in that manner or not at all and all other methods 
of performance are necessarily forbidden. Tested on this anvil ~s 
· well, the preference in. the matter of reassignment of the suit 
land in favour of the respondenf No. ·1 sans the adherence to the 
mandatory pre-req~isites eilgrafted in RSO 45(4) could not have 
been extended to him. [Para 24] (18-F-G) 
7. That the suit was filed claiming restoration of the land 
, relying on RSO 45(4) seven decades after the land had been 
bo·nght in, is writ large on the face of the record. As the above 
analysis evince that in the facts of the case, the respondent No.1/ 
plaintiff was not entitled
to the preference as coiitemplated in 
RSO 45(4), the omission on the part of the revenue authorities 
to hold a public auction before leasing out the suit land to 
Sericulture Development Departmen~ and Bharat Petroleum. 
Corporation Ltd., is of no consequence. The preference to an 
original owner or his undisputed heir in the matter of assignment 
of "bought in" lands being contingent on the compliance of the 
essential pre-requisites therefor, the High Court was wrong in 
decreeing the suit on the sole ground that no notice had been 
issued to the respondent No.llplaintiff prior to the assignment of 
the "bought in" land in the year 1958 and that the same was 
cancelled in the related revenue proceedings. The apparent huge 
delay on the part of respondent No.llplaintiff in offering to. clear 
off the arrears a nd in the ins.titution of the suit are as well 
formidable factors weighing against him. [Para 25] (18-G-H;· 
19-A-C]
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
5 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. 
Taylor v. Taylor [i875] 1 Ch. D. 426; Nazir Ahmed v. 
A 
The King l;mperor L.R. 63 Ind Ap 372 --' referred to. 
11875] 1 Ch. D. 426 
L.R. 63 Ind Ap 372 
Case Law Reference 
referred . to 
referred to 
Para24 
Para24 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6435 
of2017. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Court 
of Madurai Bench at Madras in S. A. (MD) No. 626 of 2011 ~ 
Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., B. Balaji, S. Kumar, Advs. for the 
Appellants. 
Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv., D. Kwnanan, Pulkit Tare, Sachin Pujari, 
R. V. Prabhat, Balaji, Debasis Misra, Rakesh K. Sharma, M. Yogesh 
Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Maha Lakshmi, Partha Sarathi, Brajesh Kumar Singh, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMITAVA ROY, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 
·· 16.4.2015 rendered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 
SA (MD) No. 626 of 2011, whereby it has directed them to restore the 
property involved to the respondent No. I within a period of two months 
unconditionally and further to mutate it in his name in all relevant records. 
This verdict has reversed the pronouncement in Appeal Suit No. l 25 of 
2006 by which the suit being O.S. No. ~99 of 2005, instituted by 
respondent No. I, had been dismissed. Incidentally, the suit had been 
decreed by the Trial Court. 
3. We have heard Mr.
Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel 
for the appellants, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the 
respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the 
respondent No. 2. 
4. The indispensable facts essential for comprehending the 
controversy need be gathered at the outset from the pleadings in the 
suit, in which the present appellants were the defendants along with 
respondent No. 2; 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
6 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
5. According to the respondent No. l/plaintiff, the suit property 
bearing Survey Field No.199/2 ad-measuring Ac. 4.59 cents and located 
at Village Pillayarpatti, Thanjavur Taluk belonged to his grand-father, 
Kailasam Sanaiyar and after his demise, he eventually being the only 
legal heir had been enjoying the same. It is his pleaded case that this 
land was taken over by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur for the government in 
the year 1935videfasli1343 OrderNo.18431/35A3 dated 31.12.1935 
for non-payment ofland tax and was converted into "bought in" land. 
This land was later converted into "Punjai Tharisu" (Government Dry) 
fallow land vi de order Ni-mu/I 641451 AS dated 1.3 .1945 of the R.D.O., 
Thanjavur. Subsequent thereto, by Order L.R 158 dated 31.12.1958 of 
the Special Tahsildar (Loan) and Taluk SA order vide 51 /21-1-59, the 
Survey Field No. 1.99/2 was sub-divided into l 99/2Aad-measuring Ac. 
2.23 cents and S.F. No. 199/2B ad-measuring Ac. 2.36 cents. Following 
further sub-division of the suit property, the same was assigned 
to 
Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar of Thanjavur in the 
year 1958. Being aggrieved by this assignment, the respondent No. 1 
questioned the same before the Tahsildar, Thanjavur, who by his order 
R.C. 1015/91dated18.6.1971, cancelled the same. 
6. At this, the assignees preferred appeal before the D.R.O. 
Tirnnjavur, who too dismissed the same on 7.10.1996. The Board
of 
Revenue, to which the assignees carried their further appeal, however 
by its order dated. 21.10.1978 revised the determination and remanded 
the matter to the D.R.0., Thanjavur for re-enquiry. 
7. This authority, on remand, again cancelled the assignment in 
favour of the Sanaiyars vide order dated 2.2.1980, whereupon they 
unsuccessfully appealed against the same before the Commissioner of 
Land Administration, Chennai, who refused to intervene by his order 
dated l.4J 991. Thus, the litigation qua the assignment or' the ~uit land 
in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar culminated 
on l .4, 1991 with the reje9tion of their ~peal by tl~e Com"!issioner of 
Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras, as aforementioned. 
· 
, 
,~ 
' 
~ 
8. It was at this stage that the respondent No. I/plaintiff vainly 
pleaded with the Tahsildar, Thanjavur for restoration of the suit land to 
him in the capacity of being the only legal heir of the erstwhil7 owner 
-with the offer to pay the arrears of land tax. Hqwever, as this request 
fell in deaf ears, he preferreo an appeal before the higher revenue
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
7 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
authority which also was of no avail. Instead, the land was handed 
A 
over to the Ser.iculture Development Department and Bharat Petroleum 
Corporation Limited. Situated thus, the respondent No. I/plaintiff returned 
to the civil court for redress. 
9. In the plaint, the respondent No. l/plaintiffhas pleaded that in 
terms of Revenue Standing Orders (for short, hereinafter to be referred' B 
to as "RSO") 45( 4), the lands taken from a person for non-payment of 
arrears of land tax ought to be re-assigned to him or his legal heirs in 
preference to the others, on payment of the dues. He alleged that no 
notice of any kind was given to him by the concerned revenue authorities 
before assigning the suit land in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and 
Muthusamy Sanaiyar in violation of the prescriptions of RSO 45( 4). His 
further remonstrance was that in case, under RSO 45(4), "bought in" 
land for kist due was not to be restored to the ori~inal occupant or his 
legal heirs, the same was required to be auctioned and that the assignment 
c 
in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar was 
arbitrarily made even without following this course as mandated. He 
also impeached the lease of the suit property in favour of the Sericulture 
Development Department and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 
on the cancellation of the assignment of the Sanaiyars as well in 
contravention
of the imperatives ofRSO 45(4). The following are the 
reliefs prayed for in the suit: 
"l. The Hon'ble Court might be ordered to the defendants that 
the suit property must be assigned to the plaintiff, if not so, the re-
assignment might be executed by this Hon 'hie Court. 
2. The possession of the suit property should be handed over by 
D 
E 
the defendants to the plaintiff, ifno so, the Hon'ble Court execute 
.. F 
the above." 
· 
10. The appellants/defendants in their written statement, denied 
the allegations more particularly pertaining to the alleged violation of 
RSO 45(4), as highlighted in the plaint. While admitting that the patta 
with regard to the suit property, as mentioned therein, originally stood in 
G 
the name of Kailasarn Sanaiyar, the land, for arrears of land tax, was 
"bought in" by the government. They denied the possession thereof 
subsequent thereto by the respondent No. 1 or any other heir ofKailasam 
Sanaiyar. They pleaded that the respondent No. I did never offer to pay 
the arrears tax/dues within a period of two years seeking re-assignrne11t 
H
8 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 
. [2017] 4 S.C.R. 
on the basis thereof, as contemplated under RSO 45(4). According to 
them, the assignment of the suit land in favour of the Sanaiyar~ :having 
been cancelled by the c1mcerned revenue authorities in the proceedings 
,pertaining thereto, it was duly leased out to the Sericulture Development 
Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It was averred 
in clear terms that after the suit land was "bought in" by the government, 
· it was converted into "Punjai Tharisu" land. They reiterated that tiie 
land tax due notice was sent to the owners and as they failed to ~espond 
thereto, the suit land was "bought in" by the government, whereafter as 
well, t11e land-owners remained passive for which eventually the same 
was converted into "Punjai Tharisu" land. 
11. In the suit, amongst others, the parties adduced oral and 
documentary evidence. Whereas the respondent No. 1 examined himself 
as PW! and testified in endorsement of the av~rqients made in the plaint, 
one P. Muthukumaran, assistant in the Taluk Office, Thanjavur, acquainted 
with the facts of the case, was offered as the witness on the side of the 
appellants/defendants. As would be patent from the deposition of the. 
respondentNo. l /plaintiff, he admitted on oath that the suit land, which 
originally stood mutated in the name of his grand-father Kailasam Sanaiyar 
and thereafter of his father was "bought in" by the government for arrears
in land tax and subsequent thereto was converted into "Punjai Tharisu" 
in the years 1935 and 1945 respectively. He admitted to have questioned 
the assignment of the land in favour of Karuppaiah Sanaiyar and 
Muthusamy Sanaiyar and that the proceedings in connection therewith 
did eventually end on 01.04.1991 in his favour. It is indeed apparent 
from his testimony as well that it was thereafter that he applied to the 
revenue authorities for assignment of the land in his favour offering to 
pay of the arrears. Referring to the RSO 45( 4 ), he emphasized that in 
tenns thereof he being the legal heir of the previous owner/occupant 
was entitled to a preference in the matter of such assignment and that 
the denial thereofin the facts and circumstances was illegal and arbitrary. 
He, to be specific, was critical of the omission on the part of the revenue 
authorities to issue ahotice to him before assigning the suit land in favour 
of the Sanaiyars. 
_12. As would be evident from the testimony of the witness of the 
appellants, the suit land, in the year 1935, was "bought in" by the 
government for non-payment of land tax, whereafter in 1945 it was 
classified as "Punjai" bare land. The witness deposed that even after
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
taking over of the suit land by' the government for non-payment of tax, 
the respondent No. I/plaintiff did not apply forrestoration of the possession 
by offering the arrears of tax, for which the same was classified as 
"punjai" bare land" and was thereafter sub-divided and assigned to th!l 
Sanaiyars. He, however admitted that this assignment in favour of 
Karuppaiah Sanaiyar .and Muthusamy Sanaiyar was cancelled at the 
instance of the respo,ndent No. I/plaintiff. According to this witness, it 
was only in the year 1981, when the proceedings were still pending with 
the concerned revenue authorities that the.respondent No. I/plaintiff for 
the first time g~ve an offer to pay the arrears tax for rest~ration of the ' 
land to him. 
13. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the pleadings of the 
parties and the evidence adduced, decreed the suit and directed 
restoration of the suit land on payment of the tax due. This conclusion 
was principally based on the finding that before the assignment of the 
suit land in favour of the Sanaiyars in the year 1958, no notice had been 
given to the respondent No. I /plaintiff and that no auction prior to such 
assignment had also been conducted. The Trial Court held the view that 
in the factual backdrop, the appellants/defendants ought t() have issued 
a notice to the respondent No. I /plaintiff and on realising the tax dues, 
· -~sheuki-have
restored the land to hi~. 
· 
9 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
14. As aforementioned, the First Appellate Court reversed the 
E 
decree on the ground that though admitted,ly 'the suit land was "bought 
in" by the government in the year 1935 for arre~rs of land tax, it was 
only in the year 1981 that the respondent No. I /plaintiff approached the 
government for reassignment. It also dismissed his clai~ of being in· 
possession of the suit lane! sin.ce 1935. till ~ 958. The Appellate Court was 
thus ~f the clear opinion tbatthe respondent No.I /plaintiff from 19.35 to . . F .. 
1_958 did not approach the r~:vi~nue auth.orities with th1,19ffer ~o pay-the 
land arrears and. inste.ad .did so after a 111pse of almost 30 years and 
claimed reassignment.. The Appellate Court thus held the view that the 
respondent No.1/plaintiffwas.not wjJJ.ing to pay the!al)d 11rrellrs at the . 
earliest opportunity and, therefore the course adopted by the appellants/ 
G 
defendants in. the fi1.cts of the casll cou.ld not be denounced as illegal or 
in ~iolation ofRSO 45( 4). 
· 
15.The High Court in the decision impugned, ruled that prior to 
the conversion of the land as "Punjai Tharisu" (government dry land), a 
.., '.• 
,, 
· ... 
... 
H
10 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
notice to the original owner of the land ought to have been given and the 
failure to do so has resulted in violation of the principles ofnaturaljustice. 
It also found fault with the appellants/defendants for taking over of the 
land for non-payment offand tax. According to it, the leasing out of the 
portions of the suit land to the Sericulture Development Department and 
the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was also unsustainable in law. It 
noted as well that documentary proof on behalf of the appellants/ 
defendants in support of the fact that the suit land had been "bought in" 
by the government was lacking. In this context, it favourably recorded 
the offer made by the respondent No.l/plaintiffto pay the arrears of 
land tax for securing the restoration of the ·suit land. The suit was thus 
decreed with the directions as heretofore mentioned. 
16. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has 
emphatically argued that in the face of the ad1nission of respondent No. I I 
plaintiff that the suit land had been taken over by the government for the 
default in the payment of land tax, the High Court was in error in 
repudiating the same in absence of any challenge thereto at any point of 
time. According to Mr. Prasad, the impugnment on behalf of the 
respondent No. I/plaintiff had been directed.consistently solely against 
the assignment of the suit land in favour of Kur~ppaiah Sanaiyar and
Muthusamy Sanaiyar in the year 1958 without prior notice to him and 
that thus, the question of validity or otherwise of the process of taking 
over of the land by the government for non-payment of arrears of land 
tqx had never been an issue between the parties. Ac:::ording to the learned 
senior counsel, a plain reading ofRSO 45( 4) makes it abundantly clear 
that mere cancellation of the assignment of th~ suit land in favour of 
Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar does not entitle the 
respondent No. l/plaintiff ipso facto to the restoration of the suit land 
even on payment of the tax dues by way of preference to others unless 
the conditions precedent as prescribed therein are essentially complied 
with. He has urged that as the predecessor of the respondent No.I/ 
plaintiff and he himselfhad deliberately.defaulted/failed to pay the land 
tax and the arrears, he cannot claim any preference in the matter of 
reassignment of the land to him following the cancellation of the 
assignment to Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar and thus, 
the very foundation of the impugned judgment is non est warranting 
interference of this Court therewith. The omission on the part of 
respondent No. l/plaintiff to question the taking over of the suit land by
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
11 
G..THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
the Government for the default in payment ofland tax and his inexplicable 
A 
failure to offer to pay off the dues since 1935, clearly demonstrates 
that the non-payment ofland tax had been deliberate, thus dis-entitling 
him to a preference in the matter of assignment ofthe suit land .under 
RSO 45(4), he emphasized. 
17. Per contra, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior counsel for 
the respondent No. I /plaintiff has insisted that on the cancellation of the 
assignment of the suit land in favour of Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and 
Muthusamy Sanaiyar, after a slew of adjudications by the revenue 
authorities at the instance of respondent No. !/plaintiff, the latter clearly 
was entitled to a preference for restoration thereof to him under RSO 
45(4) and, thus the impugned judgment is unassailable in law and on 
facts. According to him, the appellants/defendants having grossly erred 
in assigning the suit land to Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar 
without affording a prior opportunity to the respondent No.1/plaintiffto 
B 
c 
pay off the arrears land tax. As a logical consequence as sanctioned by 
RSO 45(4), hewas entitled to be restored therewith to the exclusion of D 
others, he urged. 
18. No other point has been canvassed. Noticeably, both sides 
are ad idem that at all relevant tim$!S, RSO 45( 4) was applicable to the 
facts of the case. 
19. The 'materials on record, as
available, and the contentious 
assertions have received our due considerati.on. That the Revenue 
Standing Orders, as framed, are of binding impact and are enforceable 
in law is an acc.epted premise as no demurer has been expressed by 
either side. These standing orders of the Board of Revenue, inter alia, 
outline the general procedure.under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery 
Act, 1864 for realization of the arrears of land revenue and incidentals 
thereto. RSO 45, the pivotal provision for the present adjudication is an 
integral part of the said process. RSO 45 provides.that ifno bid is made 
in any sale of any land for realiz!ltion of such arrears of land revenue 
etc., it should be purchased on behalf of the Government at a nominal 
price, the amount of the purchase money being written off the accounts 
as an irrecoverable arrears with the sanction of the competent authority 
and thereafter as per RSO 45(2), the government would have an absolute 
right to lands purchased by it and consequently such land would not be 
treated as a village waste available for occupation by ryots or without 
E 
F 
G 
H
12 
·A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 4 S.C.R. 
darkhast, btit has to be entered in a Taluka Register No.18A and would 
not be dealt with under the Darkhast Rules and that any unauthorized 
entry upon it would render the trespasser liable. RSO 45(4) being of 
decisive relevance is extracted herein below in full. 
· 
"45(4). Disposal of bought-in-lands.- (I) In the matter of 
assignment of bought-in-lands, the original owners or their 
undisputed heirs should be preferred to outsiders, provided that 
the assigning authorit:Y is satisfied that the original owner was not 
a willful defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances 
beyond the defaulter's control and that such assignment is 
otherwise unobjectionable. Ifthere be more than one heir of the 
original owner, the assigning authority shall have the power to 
decide to whom among them the land should be reassigned. The 
re-assignment will be free of market value; but, the re-assignment 
should be ordered only on the assignee paying the arrears of land 
revenue for which the land was bought-in, together with the 
interest thereon. Back assessment should also be collected from 
the year in which the land was bought-in, to the year of re-
assignment, or for a period of twelve years, whichever.is less. In. 
cases, where the land. has been under the occupation of any 
person Or persons Other than t~e original owner Of his SUCCeSSOf . 
. in title, for any period .during the 12 years immediately
preceding 
the year of reassignment, the period of such occupation should 
be excluded and back assessment should be collected only for 
the remahiing period." Ifbefore the 
0 
land was bought-in, and takkavi 
loan had been granted to th'e original owner on the security of the 
land and if such loan amount has not been· repaid in full, the loan 
amount or the balance <;lue, together with .interest should also be 
recove;red. from the original .owner or his undisputed heir before 
theand is re-assigned to him, even though the loan arrears, have 
been written off the account as irrecoverable. 
(2) With a view to giving effect to the above instructions, the 
following procedure is laid down:-
Immediately after a land is bought-in and its purchase mimey is 
written off the accounts under paragraph 1 above, if there is no 
objection to the assignment of the land the Tahsildar should issue 
a notice in writing to the defaulter infonning him that the land 
would be re-assigned to him ifhe pays the arrears back assessment,
TBE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
balance of loan, if any, etc:, and applies to tile tahsildar for re-
assignment of the land, within a period of one year from the date 
of receipt of such notice. Ti1e arrears and the back assessment 
due from the defaulter and, whenever possible, the interest due 
on the arrears should be specified in the notice. In the case of 
lands bought-in before Fas Ii 1366 time may be given till 30"' June, 
1958 or such other date as the Boara of Revenue may by general 
instructions specify. In such cases, if the original owner is not. 
alive, the notice mentioned above should be issued to his undisputed 
heirs. 
On receipt of an application for re-assignment of the land, the 
Tahsildar will verify whether all the arrears and back assessment, 
etc., due, together with interest on the arrears, have been remitted 
by the applicant and whether the applicant, ifhe is not the original 
owner is the undispu_ted heir ofthe original owner. The tahsildar 
will then submit the application together with his recommendation 
. to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Divisional Officer will pass 
orders on the application himself-
( a) in cases where the land is wet or other valuable land coming 
under sub-paragraph (1) (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 22 ofS.O. 
15 and whether the extent iiivolved does not exceed 2 Yi acres, 
and 
(b) in the case of other kinds of laild where the extent involved 
does not exceed
5 acres. 
· 
In all other cases, the Revenue .Divisional Officer will forward 
the application with his recommendation to the Collector for his 
orders. 
lfno application forre-assignment of the land is received within 
the specified time or ifthe original owner or his undisputed heir 
informs the tahsildar that he does not want the land back, or if 
after enquiry it is found thatthe original owner or his undisputed 
heir is not traceable, the tahsildar should submit a report in the 
matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Divisional Officer 
may then direct that the land be put up to sale again ~Ii the 
widest publicity. 011' getting the Divisional Officer's order 
. sanctioning resale, the tahsildar can himself sell the land or appoint 
the Deputy Tahsildar or t11e Revenue inspector as the selling 
13 
A 
B 
'l 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
14 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 4 S.C.R. 
officer. The sale will be subject to confirmation by the Divisional 
Officer. If however, the Divisional Officer is satisfied that the 
land will not fetch more than Rs. 10 per acre at a fresh sale, he 
may direct that the land be struck off in the Taluk Register No. 
18-A and classed as ordinary village waste. It will then be assigned, 
subject to darkhast rules in Standing Order No. 15, as modified 
from time to time." 
20. 
A plain reading of this provision yields the following salient features: 
(a) It deals with disposal of"bought in" lands. 
(b) In the matter of assignment of such "bought in" lands, the 
c 
original owners or their undisputed heirs should be preferred 
to outsiders. 
(c) Such preference would be available provided the assigning 
authority satisfied that the original owner was not a willful 
defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances beyond 
D 
the defaulters control and that such assignment is otherwise 
uno~jectionable. 
(d) If there is more than one heir of the original owner, the 
assigning authority shall have the power to decide to whom 
amongst them the land should be reassigned. 
E 
(e) The reassignment will be free of market value but the 
reassignment should be ordered only on the assignee paying 
the arrears ofland revenue for which the land was bought in, 
together with interest thereon. 
(f) Back assessment should be collected from the year in which 
F 
the land was bought in to
the year of reassignment or for a 
period of 12 years, whichever is less. 
(g) In cases where the land has been under the occupation of any 
person or persons other than the original owner or. his 
successor in title, for any period during the 12 years 
G 
immediately preceding the year ofreassignment, the period 
ofoccupation should be excluded and back assessment should 
be collected only for the remaining period. 
H 
(h) In order to give effect to these pre-requisites, immediately 
after a land is bought in and its purchase money is written
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
off, if there is no objection to the assignment of the land, the 
tahsildar should issue a notice in writing to the defaulter 
informing him that the land would be reassigned to him, ifhe 
pays the arrears, back assessment, balance of loan, if any 
etc. and if he applies to the Tahsildar for a reassignment to 
the land within a period of one year from the date of receipt 
of such notice. 
(i) In the case oflands bought in before Fasli 1366, time may be 
given till 30'h of June 1958 or such other date as the Board of 
Revenue may by general instructions specify. 
G) In such cases, if the original owner is not alive, the notice 
mentioned should be issued to his undisputed heirs .. 
(k) On the receipt of an application for reassignment of the land, 
if made, the Tahsildarwill verify whether all the arrears and 
b~ck assessment etc., due together with the interest on the 
arrears have been remitted by the applicant and whether the 
applicant, if he is not the original owner, is the undisputed h(:ir 
of the original owner. 
(I) In case all these are complied with, the Tahsildar would then 
submit the application together with his recommendation to 
the Revenue Divisional Officer. 
(m) Except in the eventualities, as mentioned therein, the Revenue 
Divisional Officer would forward the application with his 
recommendation to the Collector for his orders. 
(n) In case, no application for
reassignment is made or received 
within the specified time or if the original owner or his 
undisputed heir infonns the Tahsildar that he does not want 
the land back or, if after enquiry, it is found that the original. 
owner or his undisputed heir is rn.:it traceable, the Tahsildar 
would submit a report in the matter to the Revenue Divisional 
Officer, who would then either direct that the land be put up 
for sale again, or ifhe satisfied that the land would not fetch 
more than Rs. I 0 per acre at afresh sale, may direct that the 
land be struck off in the Taluk Register I SA and classified as 
ordinary village waste. 
· 
15 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
. 16 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
21. It would thus be evident that to avail the preference in the 
matter of assignment of"bought in" lands, the obligatory pre-requisite is 
the absence of willful default in the paymentofland tax by the original 
owner. Further the default, if any, was due to circumstances beyond his 
control and that assignment to him again is otherwise unobjectionable. It 
is only when these pre-conditions exist and the assigning authority is 
satisfied that the original owner was not a willful defaulter and that the 
default was due to circumstances beyond the defaulter's control and 
that such assignment is otherwise unobjectionable that the original owners 
or the undisputed heirs would have to be preferred to the outsiders. If it 
is not proved to the satisfaction of the assigning authority that the original 
owner was neither a willful defaulter nor. was the default due to 
circumstance beyond his control and that the assignment proposed is 
otherwise not objectionable, the subsequent steps as outlined in RSO 
45( 4) with regard thereto in favour of such assignment would be wholly 
iwpertinent. As a matter of fact, as the provision predicates, the procedure 
prescribed for the assignment of the "bought in" lands in favour of the 
original owners ortheir undisputed heirs distinctly pre-supposes these 
contingencies. In absence thereof, the concerned authority is under no 
obligation to issue notice either to the
original owners or their undi;puted 
heir(s) informing him/them that the land would be reassigned to him/ 
them if he/they pay the arrears, back assessment, back balance of loan, 
if any etc. on their application to the Tahsildar to the said effect. The 
. eventuality of a fresh sale would occur in case, in response to such 
notice, no application for reassignment is received from the original owner 
or his undisputed heir or if he/they inform the Tahsildar that he/they do 
not desire to have the land back. Here again, the Revisional Divisional 
Officer, at his discretion and ifhe is satisfied that the fresh sale would 
not fetch more than Rs. I 0 per acre, would refrain from undertaking that 
exercise and instead direct that the land be struck off in the Taluk Register 
No. I SA and classed as ordinary village waste. 
· 
22. In the face of such clear and unambiguous method of disposal 
of"bought in" lands, as prescribed by RSO 45( 4), there is no semblance 
of doubt that for an original owner or his undisputed heir to claim 
preference in the matter of assignment thereof to him/them, the above 
three pre-conditions would have to be essentially complied with. In 
absence of such compliance, any plea of preference in the assignment 
of "bought in" lands under RSO 45(4) is patently fallacious and
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G. THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVAROY, J.] 
untenable. As a corollary, even if such an assignment has been made, as 
in the instant case in favour of Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and. Muthusamy 
Sanaiyar, which ultimately had been cancelled, the same would not per 
se either indicate that the aforementioned pre-conditions were satisfied 
or would render the respondent No. I/plaintiff automatically eligible to 
avail the preference in the matter of such assignment under RSO 45( 4 ). 
In our view, it would be incumbent upon the respondei:it No. l /plaintiff in 
order to prove his entitlement for such preference, to establish that the 
original owner, when the land was "bought in" by the government, was 
not a willful d\!faulter of the land tax and that the default was due to 
circumstances beyond his control and that the assignment is otherwise 
unobjectionable to the satisfaction of the assigning authority. In the 
absence of the discharge of this otherwise statutorily prescribed 
obligation, it would be idle for him to contend that he was, even sans the 
same, entitled to be preferred in the matter of assignment of the "bought 
in" land merely on the cancellation of the previous assignment in favour 
ofKuruppaiah Sanaiyar and Muthusamy Sanaiyar. 
23. As the enumerated facts culled from the pleadings and the 
documents on record would proclaim, no evidence is forthcoming of any 
endeavour made by respondent No. I /plaintiff to this effect
or the 
satisfaction oftl1e assigning authority on these three otherwise inalienable 
aspects.so as to render him preferable to others for the assignment of 
the "bought in" land. Contrary thereto, it is the specific stand of the 
appellants/defendants that admittedly the land was "bought in" in the 
year 1935 for the failure of the original owner/the respondent No.I to 
pay the land tax in 1935, whereafter till I 958, he did not either object to 
such take over or offer to pay the arrears. It was only in I 958, when the 
"bought in" land was assigned in favour of Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar and 
Muthusamy Sanaiyar that he questioned the same on the ground of want 
of prior notice to him. This challenge, to reiterate, was focused only on · 
the assignment of the "bought in" land to the Sanaiyars without prior 
notice to him and is not qua the process by which the land had been 
bought in by the government. Noticeably, the proceedings before the 
revenue authorities initiated on this challenge by the respondent No. I I 
plaintiff to the assignment of the "bought in" land to the Sanaiyars were 
also confined to the grievance of want ofnotice to the respondent No. I/ 
plaintiff prior to such endowment to them. There is no shred of evidep.ce 
to demonstrate that the default in the payment of land tax, which resulted 
• 
fa 
) 
17 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
18 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
in the taking over oft)1e land by the government was not willful and that 
the same was due to circumstances beyond the defaulters' control and 
fu1therthat the assignment, if to be made to the respondent No. I/plaintiff 
would be unobjectionable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
~ignificantly, the respondent No.I/plaintiff admits that the land was 
"bought in" by the government in the year 1935 in view of the failure to 
pay the land tax. To reiterate, this process had not been objected to.until 
the suit was filed in the year 2005. In any view of the matter, any 
demurral to this process of taking over of the land in 1935, even ifmade 
in the year 2005 in the suit, can by no means be taken of cognizance of 
or be entertained. As a matter of fact, PW! (respondent No.I/plaintiff) 
did admit that the land was auctioned for failure to pay the land revenue 
and it was essentially therefore his burden to also establish that' such 
· default was not willful and was due to circumstances beyond his control 
and that the assignment to him was otherwise not objectionable, as 
obligated by RSO 45( 4 ). The belated willingness ofrespondent No. I I 
plaintiff to clear the arrear land tax post 1958 also does not further his 
case in this regard. On the other hand, it would be pennissible to deduce 
that the inactive, casual and passive disposition of the respondent No.1/ 
plaintiff to offer payment of the
arrears due immediately after 1935, till 
at least 30 years hence, demonstrates not only a willful default in that 
regard but also a persistent unwillingness to clear the outstanding dues, 
which in terms ofRSO 45( 4) ,disqualifies him to avail any preference in 
the matter of assignment of the "bought in" lands. 
24. It is the foundational principle of law that if the manner of 
doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be 
done in that manner or not at all and all other methods of performance 
are necessarily forbidden. This pristine legal postulation is traceable to 
the decision in Tay/orv. Taylor [1875] I Ch. D. 426 which was followed 
in N"zir Ahmed v. Tlze King Emperor L.R. 63 Ind Ap 372 and in a 
plethora of pronouncements thereafter. Tested onJhis anvil as well, the 
preference in the matter of reassignment of the suit land in favour of 
the respondent No. 1 sans the adherence to the mandatory pre-requisites 
en grafted inJlSO 45( 4) could not have been extended to him. 
25. That the suit was filed claiming restoration of the land relying 
on RSO 45(4) seven decades after the land had been bought in, is writ 
large on the face of the record. As the above analysis evince that in the 
facts of the case, the respondent No. I /plaintiff was not entitled to the
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THANJORE & ORS. v. 
G THAMBIDURAI & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
preference as contemplated in RSO 45(4), the omission on the part of 
the revenue authorities tt1 hold a public auction before leasing out the 
suit land to Sericulture Development Department and Bharat Petroleum 
Corporation Ltd., is of no consequence. The preference to an.original 
owner or his undisputed heir in the matter of assignment of"bought in" 
lands being contingent on the compliance of the essential pre-requisites 
therefor, as eluded herein before, we are of the unhesitant opinion that 
the High Court was wrong in decreeing the suit on the sole ground that 
no notice had been issued to the respondent No. I/plaintiff prior to the 
assignment of the "bought in" land in favour of Kuruppaiah Sanaiyar 
and Muthusamy Sanaiyar in the year 1958 and that the same was 
cancelled in the related revenue proceedings. The apparent huge de}ay" 
on the part ofrespondent No. I /plaintiff in offering to clear off the arrears 
and in the institution of the suit are as well formidable factors weighing 
against him. RSO 45( 4) being of binding dispensation, any assignment 
in departure therefrom, cannot receive judicial imprimatur. In the facts 
and circumstances of the case, in our estimate, the respondent No I I 
plaintiff is not entitled to the preference as contemplated therein for 
assignment of the "bought in" land. The High Court having failed to 
examine the issues in the perspectives,
as mandated by RSO 45( 4 ), the 
impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is, therefore set 
aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed. 
{ 
19 
A 
B 
c . 
D 
E