Judgment

L.M. SHARMA, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of two Judges of the Madras High court forming Special Appellate tribunal under S. 30 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963. The dispute relates to the nature of a vast area of land, fully detailed in the records of the present case, and the claim of the respondents thereto.

(2) AFTER holding a suo motu inquiry under S. 11 of the Act 30 of 1963 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram, held by his order dated 6/05/1983 that the present respondents were entitled to get a ryotwari patta under S. 8(1 of the said Act. The appellant, Deputy Salt Commissioner, filed an appeal on behalf of the government of India against this order under S. 11(3 of the Act, which was dismissed on 20/12/1983 by the Minor Inams tribunal (sub-court, Chinglepet). A further appeal under S. 30 was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(3) THE disputed land was recorded in the survey papers under Survey No. 918 (revised Survey No. 918/2 as Salt Pan Paramboke and it appears that the respondents challenged the same as erroneous by a letter dated 13/10/1973 addressed to the Director of Settlement, Madras. The Settlement Officer, Thanzavur, passed an order dated 13/10/1982 holding that the entry Salt Pan Paramboke was wrongly made. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the concerned estate wherein the disputed land is included was notified and taken over by the government in 1952 under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948 the order was passed belatedly after three decades. Besides, questioning the power of the Settlement Officer, it is also urged that the said order having been passed without impleading the appellant or the State government is non-est in the eye of law and is fit to be completely ignored; and the impugned order should be set aside because strong reliance has been placed therein, on the said order.

(4) IN passing the impugned order dated 6/05/1983 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram, purported to act suo motu under the Act 30 of 1963. The appellant, Deputy Salt Commissioner, was made a party in the proceeding, who inter alia pleaded that the respondents application for grant of patta was grossly belated and on the merits they do not have any right, title or interest in the land in question. The land which is Salt Pan Paramboke had been taken over by the government of India, and the respondents can enjoy the land only after obtaining an appropriate permission from the government of India. With respect to similar lands situated in the neighbourhood, it was said that they have got the required order in their favour, but, in regard to the disputed area they are avoiding to execute an agreement with the Salt Department with respect to major portion of the survey No. 918, after taking a lease only for a part thereto. On the merits of their respective claims both parties filed some documents. While rejecting the argument based on delay, the Assistant Settlement Officer observed that the proceeding before him was by way of suo motu inquiry. Dealing with the claim on merits the Assistant Settlement Officer relied upon the Settlement OfficerS order dated 13/10/1982 holding that the land was minor inam. The Appellate tribunal affirmed the findings and while strongly relying on the aforesaid order dated 13/10/1982, further observed that the appellant would have challenged the said order by appeal; or, if it be assumed that since he was not a party in the proceeding an appeal was not maintainable, he should have questioned the order either by a suit or any other proceeding, and since this was not done, the appellant could not be permitted to claim that the disputed land was not minor inam or that the Assistant Settlement OfficerS order was illegal. The tribunal rejected the appell