The Darkhast rules, sanctioned by the Government, govern land grants, and a grant made in accordance with these rules cannot be revoked by the Revenue authorities. The absence of a patta does not affect the validity of the grant.

Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council and the admitted facts of the case so far as they are material, are as follows:

The land in question (Survey No. 159) lying in the non-mirasi village of Santavelur, in the Chingleput District (measuring 166 30 acres,) and assessed at Rs. 43-10-0, has been classed as assessed waste in the Settlement Register. The respondent and one Srinivasulu Reddi, both being resident ryots of the said village, were the competing applicants before the Deputy Tahsildar of Satyavedu, in whose territorial jurisdiction the said village is situate, for obtaining the land, on the ordinary ryotwari tenure subject to the payment of the said assessment. The Deputy Tahsildar passed an order assigningtthe land to Srinivasulu Reddi in preference to the respondent. Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector in charge of the Trivellore Division in which the. said village is comprised and that officer by his proceedings (Exhibit H), dated 25th June 1896, cancelled the assignment in favour of Srinivasulu Reddi and assigned the whole extent of Survey No. 159 to the present respondent, (who, it is recited in the proceedings, agreed to pay up the full assessment) and communicated the same to the Deputy Tahsildar, who by his order Exhibit (J), dated 29th July 1896, communicated it to the Munsif and Karnam of Santavelur, directing them to register the whole extent of Survey No. 159 to the account of the respondent. Against the order of the Deputy Collectof, Srinivasulu Reddi preferred an appeal to the Collector of the District which was dismissed on the 10th August 1896 (Exhibit L) on the ground that he saw no reason to interfere. While the said appeal was pending before the Collector, certain ryots of the village, by a petition (Exhibit I), dated 30th July 1886, represented to the Collector that if the land be assigned on Darkhast, it will entail great hardship by depriving several cattle of their resource of water during the hot season and prayed that the assignment of the same may be cancelled. The Collector by his endorsement thereon, dated 14th August 1896, forwarded the same for report to the Deputy Collector, who, in his turn, by endorsement, dated 27th August 1896, forwarded it to the Deputy Tahsildar for early report. That officer submitted a report (Exhibit II), dated 6th October 1896, stating that the land was useful to a large number--about 3,000,--of the cattle of the village that the villagers turned out en masse and bitterly complained against the assignment of the land as" it was used by them as a grazing ground, and that, in his opinion, the prayer of the petitioners, that the land should be reserved for communal purposes was a reasonable one. With reference to this report made by the Deputy Tahsildar, the Collector on the 23rd October 1896, observed that the Deputy Collector " may revise his order as he thinks fit, in the light of the facts now before him" and by endorsement (Exhibit V), dated 4th February 1897, referred the petition of the ryots to the Deputy Collector for disposal. The Deputy Collector who was the successor in office of the Deputy Collector who had made assignment of the land to the respondent--by his proceedings (Exhibit VI), dated 25th February 1897, cancelled the assignment and directed the Deputy Tahsildar to submit the necessary application for transferring it to grazing ground poramboke. The village officers had not formally placed the respondent in possession of the land, nor had any patta been issued to him. He, however, appears to have taken possession of the land himself and as an attempt was made by the Revenue Officer to levy from him what is styled a penal assessment," he brought this suit for a declaration of his right to the land.

2. On behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council, a written statement was filed contending that "the Civil Courts are not compete