Order impugned held without jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of an Estates Manager to pass an order correcting the land register maintained under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act) is canvassed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is one Chidambaram Chettiar. The Government published a notification in 1950 under section 1(4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, Act XXVI of 1948 taking over the Kumalur estate in Arantangi taluk, Tanjore District. At the time of this taking over, the petitioner, Chidambaram Chettiar was admittedly in possession of 1.50 cents wet and 5 cents of dry land which are the subject-matter of dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent in this writ petition. There was no dispute that this land is ryoti land and Chidambaram Chettiar’s name was accordingly entered in the land register as the person in possession of the land. On 31st July, 1954, the first respondent, Muhammad Aliar Rowther, purchased these and other items from one Muthuvairavan Servai. After his purchase the first respondent filed an application before the Estates Manager to register the lands mentioned in the petition in his name in the land register of Kumalur village. The jurisdiction of the Estates Manager was invoked under the powers stated to have been conferred on him by the rules made by the Government under the Act and published on 16th August, 1949. I shall be referring to the terms of the rules and to the scope of those rules in relation to the rest of the provisions of the Act a little later. The jurisdiction of the Estates Manager to conduct this enquiry to afford Muhammed Aliar Rowther the relief which he had prayed for was challenged by Chidambaram Chettiar. His objection was overruled and the matter was considered on its merits. This officer found after the enquiry that the person prima facie entitled to the grant of patta was not Chidambaram Chettiar but Muthuvairavan Servai and that as Muhammad Aliar Rowther had purchased the right of Muthuvairavan Servai he was entitled to have his name entered in the land register. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai but that was dismissed and he has thereupon moved this Court by the present writ petition.

The only point that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which is relevant for the disposal of this writ petition is as regards the jurisdiction of the Estates Manager to grant to the first respondent the relief which he claimed. In my judgment the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is well founded! The scheme of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 which I shall hereafter refer as the Abolition Act in relation to this matter is briefly this:-

On the publication of a notification under section 1(4) with reference to any estate the consequences set out in section 3 came into operation and these are:-

.............................

(b) the entire estate (including all communal land and porombokes other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands, lanka lands, forests; mines and minerals; quarries rivers and streams. . . . . shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances.....................................................

(d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans’ and other documents relating to the estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof.”

and then follows the proviso which is very important for the purpose of the present case:

“Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta.

(i) if such person is a ryot pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta.

(ii) if su