The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the appeal process under the Inam Estates Act, particularly in relation to the Assistant Settlement Officer's order.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In this appeal, the appellant/respondent has challenged the order dated 24th June, 2004, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.34355 of 2003 whereby and where under while it was accepted that the order passed on 23rd Dec., 1971, had not been served on appellant, and the order passed by the respondent Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration remanding the case was upheld, instead of remanding the case to the authority to whom the case was remanded by respondent, Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration, learned single Judge remitted the case to the Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Inam Estates Act).

2. As the case could be disposed of on a short question of law, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as noticed hereunder:

According to the appellant, the property R.P. 391 was purchased by him from Mariappa Pillai on 3rd April, 1965, along with a building constructed thereon. He was paying house tax through assessment No.115. He purchased superstructure in N.S. No.175/309 (to the extent of 0.01) and paying a sum of Rs.200/= every year to the respondent Vedaraneswarar Swami Temple (hereinafter referred to as Devasthanam) for the site. There are seven shops assessed to panchayat tax under assessment Nos.134, 135, 44, 46 and 50. Similar claim was also made with regard to N.S. 175/308 (to an extent of 0.02).

Further case of the appellant is that the Assessment Settlement Officer issued impugned order on 23rd Nov., 1971, allowing the claim of Devasthanam with regard to Schedule-A property and the appellants prayer for issuance of patta in his name in respect of land in question was rejected without intimating the same.

The appellant preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer in R.C. No.6886/93/A2 as per Explanation 1 (b) below Schedule attached to the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965 – now known as Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1976), which was rejected on 14th Feb., 1994. Thereafter, the appellant preferred first revision application under Rule 7 before the Director of Settlement in E2/838/97 dated 30th Aug., 1998, dismissed of on 30th Aug., 1998. Subsequently, second revision was preferred by the appellant under Rule 8 before the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Board of Revenue having been abolished, it was registered as No.K-1/8/2000. In the said case, by impugned order dated 12th May, 2003, the Commissioner having noticed the fact that the order dated 23rd Dec., 1971 was not communicated to the appellant, remitted the matter to the Director of Settlement for reconsideration of the first revision application (used the term – Appeal). The respondent Devasthanam having challenged the said order, learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 24th June, 2004, while did not choose to interfere with the order of remand, observed that the appeal should be determined by Tribunal under Inam Estates Act.

3. The main plea taken by appellant is that the order dated 23rd Nov., 1971, having passed by Assistant Settlement Officer u/s 15 (4) of Inam Estates Act, the appeal was maintainable before the Settlement Officer as per Explanation 1 (b) below Schedule attached to the original Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965, against which first revision under Rule 7 was maintainable before the Director of Settlement and second revision under Rule 8 was maintainable before Board of Revenue, which having abolished, will lie before the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, who has passed the order on 12th May, 2003.

On the other hand, counsel for the Devasthanam, while referred to the first part of the order dated 23rd Nov., 1971, submitted that the enquiry being made purs