JUDGMENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN The petitioner’s application for transfer of registry based on a claim for adverse possession in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 (herein after referred to as the ‘T.R. Rules, 1966’) -is virtually refused by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar by Ext.P6 order, which is under challenge herein. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure contemplated in Rule 10, Note (ii), has not been complied with while issuing the Ext.P6 order. Learned counsel would elaborate that, once an application under Rule 4 is preferred, and if the application falls under the category of uncontested cases under Rule 9, the procedure contemplated in Rule 10 has to be followed. Rule 10 speaks of two categories, the latter of which deals with cases where a decision cannot be taken without conducting a further enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar. In respect of that category, Note (ii) provides that, in cases where acquisition of title is claimed by adverse possession, notices have to be issued to the parties interested inviting objections, besides publishing on the notice board of the concerned Village, Panchayat and Taluk Offices. Thereafter, the application for transfer of registry have to be considered and disposed of on merits by the Deputy Tahsildar. The specific grievance espoused is that, this procedure was not followed. Learned counsel would also submit that the refusal of petitioner’s application vide Ext.P6, for the reason that resurvey in the village has not been completed, is not a legally recognizable ground for not effecting transfer of registry. 3. The learned Government Pleader argued to sustain Ext.P6 issued by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar. It was also pointed out that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the Thandapper holders, namely the legal heirs of one Kesava Iyer, have not been made parties in this writ petition. Inasmuch as the property is in the Thandapper account of late Kesava Iyer and since disputes exist between his legal heirs, mutation cannot be effected in favour of the petitioner, is the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. 4. Inasmuch as the property is in the Thandapper account of late Kesava Iyer and since disputes exist between his legal heirs, mutation cannot be effected in favour of the petitioner, is the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. 4. Rule 28 of the T.R. Rules, 1966 is extracted here below: “28.Transfer in favour of person proving title by adverse possession for 12 years or more.-Where parties who have no documents of title are shown in a summary enquiry to have been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession as reputed owners for 12 years or more transfer of registry may be made after notice, etc. as provided in Note(ii)toRule10.Theaction contemplated in this paragraph may be taken by the revenue officers either on their own motion or on the applications presented by the parties concerned. Payment of revenue as evidenced by the production of kist receipts or by the testimony of the Village Officers may be taken as proof of possession, but the absence of such proof shall not be considered entirely to invalidate the claim and oral evidence of possession may be accepted.” True that Rule 28 confers a right to a party to seek transfer of registry based on actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession as reputed owners for a period of 12 years or more, as provided in Note (ii) to Rule 10. This Court is of the opinion that, though an enabling power is conferred under Rule 28, the practical exercise of the same will pose various imponderables before the revenue authorities concerned. The question as to whether the applicant has been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession, that too as reputed owner for a period of 12 years or more, is a matter quite difficult -if not impossible -to be enquired into and satisfied by the Revenue Officers. Such exercise has to be done after issuing notice to the interested parties and a decision in this regard has to be taken on merits, as enjoined by Rule 10, Note (ii). It is true that Rule 28 has been engrafted into the Rules for fiscal purposes, ensuring that the revenue due to the Government even in respect of a land in the settled possession of a person, albeit without title, is collected. It is true that Rule 28 has been engrafted into the Rules for fiscal purposes, ensuring that the revenue due to the Government even in respect of a land in the settled possession of a person, albeit without title, is collected. However, the concept, it seems, has undergone some change, inasmuch as the revenue being generated under this head-especially in respect of lands where there is no apparent title-does not appear to be significant. Aucontraire, the transfer of registry being effected in favour of the applicants has become more of their need, inasmuch as such transfer of registry and consequent payment of tax thereafter are insisted upon for any and every activity in connection with the Government. Accordingly, it has thus become the need of the parties, than that the Government for fiscal purposes as usually conceived. In such circumstances, the continuance of Rule 28 in the T.R. Rules, 1966 -thereby imposing an onerous duty on the revenue officers to embark on a very difficult enquiry deserves reconsideration by the appropriate authority in the Government. This is particularly so, since even the Civil Courts would find it difficult to adjudicate a claim based on adverse possession, which should necessarily satisfy the requirements of “nec vi,nec clam, nec precario”. Needless to say that the matter requires an adjudicatory process, after analyzing the evidence adduced, for which the revenue officers, in my estimation, are neither equipped nor competent, having regard to the nature of the duties which they are called upon to perform, otherwise. The possibility of misuse by staking a larger claim on the strength of a transfer of registry made under Rule 28, albeitwithout an adjudicatory process, also cannot be ruled out. Even in the absence of Rule 28, necessary entry can be made on the basis of Rule 16 of the T.R. Rules, 1966, once the person in possession establishes his claim before a Civil Court. 5. In this regard, it is profitable to take into account, the unkind attitude taken by Courts in various countries in recognising a claim based on adverse possession, since it ultimately boils down to a premium on a trespasser, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan [ (2009) 16 SCC 517 ] and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors [ (2011) 10 SCC 404 ]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went to the extent of directing consideration of deleting the enabling provision which recognises adverse possession-from the statute book. 6. This Court is of the definite opinion that the issue should receive appropriate reconsideration at the hands of the Government. To enable the same, this Court directs a copy of the judgment to be communicated to the Secretary to the Revenue in the Government for the needful. Be that as it may. 7. Nonetheless, as long as Rule 28 finds a place in the statute book, the petitioner is entitled to adherence of the procedure laid down in Note (ii) to Rule 10. There is no quarrel that Ext.P6 was not issued adhering to the procedure so prescribed therein. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 is hereby set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to adhere to the requirements of T.R. Rules, 1966, while dealing with the application preferred by the petitioner, especially Rule 10, Note (ii) thereof, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and all other interested parties. Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of.