The concept of "Ownership" as in the right to sell (dispose) was a concept from the west that did not exist in India before the arrival of the Europeans. Land was plentiful, so there was no need to buy land. The "tenant" or cultivator had rights, but paid taxes to the crown. The king/monarch could evict the cultivator for not paying taxes. But the land that he cultivated passed on to his descendants naturally under most circumstances. So this does imply a dual ownership pattern, even if unwritten.
When the British came they adopted the land revenue system largely from the Mughals. They also tried the Zerat, Zamindari, Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems, which are all in a sense, ways to help the administration collect taxes, without actually conferring disposition rights. So that largely points towards a "non-ownership" pattern.
However, the British "person" was often engaged in business, outside the "Company". There are instances of Manors in which they lived. Such as say "Morgan House" in Kalimpong, and certainly many more. Who "owned" them? Possibly in legal terms, there were no disposition rights held by them because there was no legal framework to accommodate such an entity.
Here are some references:
Traditionally there were two parties, and only two, to be taken into account ; these parties were the ruler and the subject, and if a subject occupied land, he was required to pay a share of its gross produce to the ruler in return for the protection he was entitled to receive.
It will be observed that under this system the question of ownership of land does not arise ; the system is in fact antecedent to that process of disentangling the conception of private right from political allegiance which has made so much progress during the last century, but is not even now fully accomplished.
From India at the Death of Akbar - an Economic Study by W. H. Moreland (1920)
The power of the Emperor was theoretically absolute. The property, the liberty, the lives of his subjects were at his unconditional disposal. According to the received courtly doctrine, he was the exclusive owner of the whole soil of the Empire.
From India on the Eve of British Conquest by SIDNEY OWEN, (1872)
Even more interesting though, is that the East India company may not have "acquired" land - here is an oblique reference to that:
It has been, in other days, the boast,—the unintelligible boast—of the partisans of the East-India Company,—that we had conquered India, and had not possessed ourselves of one foot of the territory. What more than the nett rental of the soil, the Company could appropriate to itself, nobody has undertaken to show.
From THE ARTICLE ON THE COLONIZATION AND COMMERCE OF BRITISH INDIA FROM THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW, No. XXII, For October 1829
I think the interesting question that emerges is : How did disposition rights in India come to be, in the first place, and when?