The judgment established the authority of the Settlement Officer to issue Ryotwari patta and affirmed the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide title to the property despite the finality reached with respect to patta issuance under the Act.

Act, 1963 and to quash the proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore (Tribunal under the Tamilnadu Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.)

Common Order:

Civil Revision Petition No.3618 of 2009 is filed by the second respondent in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 challenging the interim order passed as against him in I.A.No.488 of 2009 and Civil Revision Petition No.3619 of 2009 is filed by the second respondent in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 praying to strike off the entire proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Special Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

2. Brief facts of the case:- a) The suit properties bearing Survey Nos.281 and 284 Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore District measure 6.39 acres and 5.71 acres respectively. The said lands were originally enfranchised as village service inam. After the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as "the Act"), the inam tenure of the lands stood abolished and the land vested with the Government with effect from 15.2.1965, the appointed day under the Act. There were no claims from any quarters with respect to those properties. Therefore, the Settlement Officer IV, Gobichettipalayam conducted a suo motu enquiry under section 11 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Settlement Officer, having found that the petitioner herein was in possession and enjoyment of the property, exercising his 'iruvaram' rights, by proceedings dated 10.8.1968 directed to issue Ryotwari patta in respect of those lands in the name of the petitioner. As no appeal was preferred by anyone questioning the said order, the Settlement Officer, Coimbatore Taluk issued patta in the name of the petitioner, consequent upon the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 10.8.1968.

b) The petitioner, thereafter, was served with a memo dated 5.12.2008 by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South Taluk stating that one Muralidharan and the heirs of late Ramasamy Naidu and Bakthavachalam Naidu had applied for change of patta in their names. A Writ Petition in W.P.No.1356 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein questioning the said memo issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South Taluk. This court was pleased to quash the said memo by its order dated 27.4.2009 holding that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to enquire and change the name in the revenue records after the order of the Settlement Officer under the Act. This court also made an observation that the dispute regarding the property can be decided in the suit in O.S.No.937 of 2009 already filed by the petitioner or in the appropriate proceedings initiated by the 6th respondent herein.

c) Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed O.S.No.354 of 2009 against the petitioner herein praying for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction with respect to the suit properties. They have also pleaded for declaration that the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam made on 10.8.1968 is non est, void ab initio, illegal and not binding on them. Thereafter, the present proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 under the Act were initiated by respondents 1 to 6. The papers in C.M.A were returned by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore stating that the claim of respondents 1 to 6 herein could be established in an appropriate suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the order passed by the Tahsildar granting Ryotwari patta. Contending that appeal alone would lie questioning the order of Settlement Officer and that no forum can entertain proceedings against the order of Settlement Officer, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal papers were re-presented and the Principal Subordinate Judge took the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on file.

d) Respondents 1 to 6 filed an interim application in I