The decision of the Tribunal regarding the status of the village as a whole inam village was held to be binding on the Government in subsequent proceedings under Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947.

VISWANATHA SASTRY, J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of Subbarao J. (as he then was) quashing a notification of the Government declaring that Sanjeevarayanipattada is a village to which the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947, applies. Prior to this notification there were proceedings under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, in which it was held by the Tribunal sitting on appeal from the Settlement Officer that as the grant was not of the whole village, the village was not an inam estatewithin the meaning of S. 2(7) of that Act. The learned Judge held that the decision of the Tribunal holding that the village in question was not a whole inam village was binding on the Government in subsequent proceedings under Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947. The correctness of this view is questioned in this appeal.

2. It is unnecessary to quote the relevant sections of the Acts of 1947 and 1948 which have now become familiar. Under S. 2(7) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 an "inam estate" is defined as an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) but not so as to include an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act (XVIII of 1936). Madras Act XXX of 1947 applies to all estates as defined in S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended by Madras Act XVIII of 1936. Therefore inam estates not governed by Madras Act XXVI of 1948 might fall within the operation of Madras Act XXX of 1947. Neither under Madras Act XXX of 1947 nor under Madras Act XXVI of 1948 will less than a village be an inam estate. The definition of an inam estate for purposes of Act XXX of 1947 is wider than its definition for purposes of Act XXVI of 1948 inasmuch as the latter excludes while the former includes whole village inams which became estates under Madras Act XVIII of 1936.

3. Now S. 9(1) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Section 9 (1) posits the existence of a whole inam village and gives power or jurisdiction to the Settlement Officer to determine whether such village is an inam estate as defined in S. 2(7) of that Act. Similarly, Act XXX of 1947 posits the existence of a whole village and gives the Special Officer power to recommend rates of rent payable for the cultivable lands of the village. In Venkatanarasayya v. State of Madras, ILR (1952) Mad 680 : (AIR 1953 Mad 60) (A), Rajamannar, C. J. and Venkataramayya, J., referring to S. 9 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 observed :

"Section 9 of that Act provides for the determination after enquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Presumably when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under S. 9 would not strictly be open to the aggrieved party. There is no other provision in the Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature that arises less than a village.

It follows from these observations that the opinion of the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal given in a proceeding under S. 9 that an inam grant is of less than a village and therefore outside the ambit of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, will not be binding on the parties, or the State in proceedings under Madras Act XXX of 1947. Moreover, S. 64-A of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 does not make the decision of a Tribunal on any matter falling within its jurisdiction binding on the Special Officer or the Board of Revenue functioning under Madras Act XXX of 1947 and determining the rent payable by ryots though such decision is binding on the parties and persons claiming under them in any suit or proceeding in a civil Court, if the same matter is in issue. There is also the further fact in this case that the Government was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal under S. 9 of Madras Ac