Rajagopalan, J.-The petitioner was the holder of the zamindari estate, known as the Pudur Zamin in Tirunelveli District. Under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act that estate vested in the Government with effect from 3rd January, 1951, the notified date. Vagaikulam was one of the villages included in that estate. It was common ground, that it was an uninhabited village, though for how long it had remained uninhabited there was no evidence to show. It was also common ground that the entire extent of the village of about 71 acres 42 cents. always belonged to the petitioner. No ryot held any land in that village. Included in this extent of 71.42 acres was a tank (Kanmoi) which measured 32.33 acres. The ayacut of that tank measured 37.18 acres, and the petitioner cultivated the whole of that ayacut as part of the private lands of the landholder in that estate.

After the estate had been abolished under the Act the petitioner applied to the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer for a ryotwari patta for the entire extent of the lands in Vagaikulam including the areas occupied by the tank. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim for the tank as well as for some of the other plots of land. The petitioner appealed against that decision to the Estates Abolition Tribunal. In effect, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner for a ryotwari patta for all the lands in Vagaikulam other than the tank. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for a ryotwari patta for the area occupied by the tank.

The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioner — we are now concerned only with the claim for a ryotwari patta for the area of the tank — fell neither under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 12 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not rest the claim on section 12(b) before us. But he challenged the validity and the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, that the petitioner’s claim fell outside the scope of section 12(a). The finding of the Tribunal on that point was:

"The first question is if these lands are pannai or private lands under section 3(10)(a) of Act I of 1908. There is no evidence that these lands were dealt with or enjoyed or treated as pannai lands prior to 1908; nor is there any evidence of direct and personal cultivation of these lands for a continuous period of 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of Act 1 of 1908; nor is there any evidence that the kanmoi was constructed by the appellant or her ancestor. There is therefore no evidence that these lands are appellant’s pannai lands as contemplated by section 2(10)(a) and she will not be entitled to a ryotwari patta for them under section 12(a) of Act XXVI of 1948."

Section 12(a) of the Act runs:-

"In the case of a zamindari estate the landholder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of.

(a) all lands including lanka lands which immediately before the notified date — (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of section 3, clause 10(a) of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act, not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land;

It was conceded that no record of rights was ever prepared for Vagaikulam or for the estate. So the question, did the tank belong to the petitioner as a private land, had to be answered only with reference to the requirements of section 3(10)(a) of the Estates Land Act.

Section 3(10)(a) of the Estates Land Act runs:

"Private land-

in the case of an estate.....means the domain or home-farm land of the landholder by whatever designation known such as kambattam, khas, sir, or pannai, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document