Balakrishna Ayyar, J.- This is a petition by the State of Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, in Revenue Appeal No. 73 of 1955 on its file.

The village of Avarendal in Paramakudi taluk in Ramanathapuram district was an Inam Estate. On 3rd December, 1953, the State of Madras notified and took it over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. One Peria Pappammal, who had been the landholder of the village, applied to the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Aruppukottai, for the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of various items of land. We are now concerned only with twelve of those items. The Special Tahsildar objected before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer to the grant of the ryotwari patta claimed by Peria Pappammal on the ground that those twelve items of lands are liable to submersion under the irrigation tank of the village. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Peria Pappammal. On appeal, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, reversed his decision and directed the grant of a patta to Peria Pappammal. The State of Madras now seeks to have that order quashed.

Shunmugha Sundara Mudaliar, the husband of Peria Pappammal, gave evidence on her side. He filed a number of documents, apparently intended to establish the title of his wife to these twelve items among others. He also deposed that these twelve items are ‘kulam punjais ‘and that they are higher in level than the ‘vettu thavu ‘which we take to mean the deeper portions of the tank. He also deposed that there are continguous plots of ryoti lands to the north and south of these twelve items and that the “ vettu thavu” is to the east and some 40 or 50 feet away.

The Karnam of the village was examined on behalf of Government. He deposed that all these twelve items are kulam punjais and that water may stagnate on them to a depth of about 2 feet when there is full supply in the tank. The area of the tank-bed had not been separately noted in the adangal. Water might stagnate in other ryoti lands also. The petitioner pays kist for these lands. He specifically mentioned that all the lands mentioned in the application are registered in the name of the petitioner. He also added that the petitioner does not obstruct the free flow of water to the tank, that there are no high ridges in the fields and that there are ryoti lands nearby.

The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Peria Pappammal in respect of these twelve items, and, in doing so, observed as follows:

“The ryots object to item No. 9 (wet), item No. 14 (dry) and item No. 37 (dry). The petitioner gives up her claim in respect of item 9 (wet) and 14 (dry). As regard? item No. 37, the petitioner agrees to give up the excess extent claimed by her. The ryots do not claim the other lands. There are ryoti as well as pannai lands in the village. The other lands claimed by him are enjoyed by her by personally cultivating them and by leasing a few lands. She has filed a number of sale deeds, othi deeds, lease deeds,obbadi accounts and old adangals to show that the lands are her private lands and that they are registered as such in the village accounts. Items 1 to 12 (dry) are foreshore land liable to submersion. As water may stagnate there for about months it is not desirable to allow the lands to be cultivated in the interest of the tank. These lands are therefore required for the tank. The claim in respect of these lands cannot be allowed.”

It will be noticed that the order does not show that the other ryots in the village objected to the grant of a ryotwari patta to Peria Pappammal in respect of the twelve items we are now concerned with. It has also to be remarked that the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer has made no effort to ascertain whether the claim of Peria Pappammal in respect of all or any of these twelve items was actually supported by the documents filed on her behalf.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document