These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari, to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Estates Abolition Act, confirming the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer.

The petitioner was the landholder entitled to what was known as the Pudur zamindari, which consisted of a number of villages. The estate vested in the Government after the Government issued the notification prescribed by section 3 of the Abolition Act. The petitioner applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer for ryotwari pattas for various items of lands, in nine villages. Except possibly in the case of one item in Melapatti Village, all the lands for which the petitioner applied for ryotwari pattas stood registered in the accounts maintained by the landholder as poramboke lands. Two of the items were described further as nandavanams. The rest were described as topes. The topes contained either tamarind or palmyrah trees.

There can be no doubt that the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide ,the claim, and it should be remembered that the Appellate jurisdiction was invoked by the petitioner herself. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the exercise of that jurisdiction was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. I

All the three members of the Tribunal were of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim for a ryotwari patta for the nandavanams failed. The chairman and the Third Member were of the view, that the petitioner’s claim for ryotwari pattas for the topes also failed. The Second Member differed from them on that point and held that the petitioner had established her claim to ryotwari pattas for these items.

In the view I propose to take it is unnecessary for me, nor does it really lie within my jurisdiction, to decide which of the two views is correct. The Assistant Settlement Officer discussed the evidence for and against the claim of the petitioner with reference to each of the items, though the claims were all disposed of by a single order. The Tribunal also disposed of all the appeals by a single order. But the Tribunal failed to consider the claim for each item of land separately, as it should have done. Of course, it cannot be only on that basis that the order of the Tribunal can be set aside. But if it is shown that the Tribunal failed to take into account all the relevant factors or took into account irrelevant factors, the decision of the Tribunal is liable to be corrected in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The point is best illustrated by one example. In K.L.P. 1 of 1951 before the Assistant Settlement Officer (R.A. 10 of 1953 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal W.P. No. 1044 of 1953 on the file of this Court) the petitioner claimed a ryotwari patta for an item of land 45 cents in extent in Kambathupatti village. That was registered as a poramboke, and was shown as tope on ground with tamarind trees therin. The name of the tope was shown as Meyyan Oorani tope. What the Tribunal had to decide and what it failed to decide with reference to this specific item was whether the tope was part of the pond known as Meyyan Oorani. If on a consideration of all the relevant factors, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 45 cents was part of the pond-either part of the bed or part of the bund-the Tribunal had still to consider whether it fell under section 3(16)(a) or 3(16)(b) of the Estates Land Act, which can be comprehensively characterised as “communal poramboke” lands. The lands referred to in section 3(16)(a) of the Estates Land Act have obviously to be retained for the use of the community or section thereof. The lands referred to in section 3(16)(b) of the Act have to be retained for the common use of the villagers. It should, however, be remembered that, though both classes of lands are popularly known as communal poramboke lands, such an expression has not been used in the Estates Land