Judgment

Misra, J.-These two appeals raise a common question hence are being disposed of by means of this common judgment. The question raised is, whether Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai, consisting of two distinct areas, viz., Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai was known at the relevant time, is a minor inam coming within the purview of The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to ‘as the Act 30 of 1963’) or it would fall under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1963, (hereinafter referred to ‘as the Act No. 26 of 1963’). The State Government initially issued notification treating it to be under Act No. 26 of 1963, later withdrew and noti­fied it under Act No. 30 of 1963. The appellants’ contention is that the State Government rightly issued it to be under Act No. 30 of 1963 and it is held to be valid also by the Settlement Officer, S.R. II, Thanjavur.

2. The short facts are that the respondents filed a petition under Sec­tion 5 of the Madras Inams (Supplementary) Act (XXXI of 1963) (here­inafter referred to as ‘Act No. 32 of 1963’) for a declaration that the said two distinct areas of lands in Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai Village, of Papanasam Taluk form a new inam estate falling under Act No. 26 of 1963. The notification issued by the Government of India under Act No. 30 of 1963 is illegal, liable to be quashed as the original grant of the disputed areas was not made in terms of acreages or cawnies hence would only constitute to be a part of inam estate in view of Section 2(11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963. The Settlement Officer after hearing parties, including the State, held that the Madras High Court in Karumba­vira Vanniar & Ors. v. Govindaswami Vanniar & Ors.1, held that Arayap­uram Thattimal Padugai is not ‘estate’ within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. It further recorded that evidence shows that in 1829 there were two areas, namely, Mela Thatti­mal Padugai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mela’) and Kizha Thattimal Padugai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kizha’). The former formed part of Rajagiri village and the latter formed part of Papanasa village. It is the area of this land in Mela and Kizha which is the subject matter under consideration. The Settlement Officer held it neither to be whole village nor part village, and even not covered under Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2(11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963 as the grant is not of any fraction or specified number of shares of a part of village. It concluded that the grant was of specified extents of lands, hence, is covered by Explanation 1(b) of Section 2(11), thus a minor inam and so the suit land in Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai is only a minor inam falling under Act No. 30 of 1963, thus upheld the impugned notifica­tion. The petition of the respondents was accordingly dismissed. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Minor Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) of Thanjavur, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held with reference to the Karum­bavira Vanniar (supra) that the undisputed facts which emerges are that in 1862, which is the year of grant, there were two areas, namely Mela and Kizha falling under villages Rajagiri and Papanasam, respec­tively. In the list of 193 villages in the grant of 1862, one of the entries is Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai. It further records, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents (appellants here) that the extent of the padugai or the boundaries of the lands in question are not given. It is these two portions, namely, Mela and Kizha, subsequently, were merged together and formed into the present revenue Village No. 5 as Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai in 1919. The Tribunal further accepted submission on behalf of the appellants (respondents here) that the said two distinct portions granted in inam can be eas