The decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal on the question of whether a particular land is ryoti land or not is final and cannot be questioned in any court of law.

JUDGMENT :- These four appeals raise a common question. S. A. No. 1557 of 1965 is filed by the respondents in S. A. 1357 of 1965 to the extent to which the decisions of the courts below went against them.

2. The short facts, the narration of which is necessary for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, are that the village of Mathi in Tanjore Dt. is an estate to which the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 and the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 applied; but not the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. The respondents to the first three appeals claimed that the lands with reference to which they filed the present suit for recovery of rent were private lands. It is the common case of the parties that a notification under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 was made by the Government fixing reduced rates of rent for ryoti lands in the village of Mathi. However, the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947, as originally passed did not contain any provision for deciding the question whether a particular piece of land is a ryoti land or a private land in an estate with reference to which a notification has been made under the said Act. Subsequently, by an amendment made in 1956, namely, Madras Act 29 of 1956, Section 3-A was introduced prescribing the machinery for the purpose of determining whether any land in a a village is or is not ryoti land. Under that section, provision was made for determining that question by the Collector and a right of appeal was provided to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the village. Section 3-A (4) (b) of the Act states that the decision of the Tribunal on the appeal shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any court of law.

3. In this case, the respondents herein filed an application before the Collector for determining the question whether the lands involved in these appeals are ryoti lands or private lands. The application was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, who by an order dated 20-2-1959 made in M. A. 22 of 1957, decided that the lands are private lands. The appellants herein took up the matter on appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal by its order dated 12-3-1960, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the lands are private lands and not ryoti lands. At that stage, the respondents herein filed suits for recovery of rent from the appellants herein. The appellants resisted the claim on several grounds, the most important of which is that the lands are ryoti lands situate in an Inam estate and therefore the respondents are not entitled to file the suit in the Civil Court for recovery of rent. After the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, the respondents preferred a writ petition on the file of this Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal. By an order dated 4-4-1962, Veeraswami, J., dismissed the writ petition in the following terms -

"The petitioner's proper remedy is to institute a suit. The petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. No costs".

I must point out at this stage that the suits filed by the respondents herein were decreed by the learned District Munsif of Kumbakonam, and against the said judgments and decrees, the appellant herein had preferred appeals to the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, and during the pendency of the said appeals, the order above quoted in the writ petition was passed by this Court. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellants put forward only two contentions, namely, the suit lands are not private lands of the plaintiff and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to go into that question and secondly there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Except in the appeal which has given rise to S. A. 1357 of 1965, in all the other appeals, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed