Restriction regarding non-issuance of Ryotwari Patta not confined to the area covered by water.

Chandurkar, C.J.

The land is dispute in these proceedings is S.No.288, which in the revenue records is shown as having an area of 10-83 acres and is recorded as a tank. After Act 26 of 1948 came into force, the first respondent herein, who has filed the writ petition for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, was granted a patta on 31st December, 1958 in respect of the said land which is described in the order of the Assistnat Settlement Officer as Oorani and the appurtenant sites. A condition was attached to this patta that the grantee should continue to maintain Oorani for the sake of the villagers and others. By an amendment to Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, made by Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1974, a new provision was introduced as section 14-A in the Act. In section 14-A(1) it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or Oorani. Sub-section (2) with which we are concerned, reads as follows:

“Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition, and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”

It appears that after the Amending Act came into force, the present appellant filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue praying that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer should be quashed. The Board of Revenue took notice of this revision petition and on a construction of Section 14-A took the view that it was admitted before the Board that the land in dispute constituted the private oorani and a temple and therefore, the application of the provision of section 14-A of the Act becomes automatic and inescapable. The Board took the view that under Section 14-A, all pattas in respect Of oorani or private tank stood automatically cancelled and all that had to be done was to implement the said cancellation by serving an intimation on the pattadars in the Form prescribed in the Rules issued under section 67 read with section 14 A of the Act, and the necessary corrections in the village records had to be carried out. The Board of Revenue, therefore, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to issue an intimation if he had not already done so.

2. This order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the first respondent in the writ petition. In the writ petition the learned single Judge of this Court took the view that it was not the case of any one that the entire extent of 10-83 acres was covered by the oorani and therefore, according to him the proper and just order to be passed was to limit the operation of the order of the Board of Revenue to the actual extent covered by both Ooranies. This extent was directed to be determined by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti. It was directed that patta will be issued to the first respondent herein after demarcating the actual extent. This order is now challenged in this appeal by the third respondent in the writ petition (original revision petitioner before the Board of Revenue) in this appeal.

3. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the pattu had to be cancelled in respect of the actual area covered by the ooranies. The argument is that survey ‘o.2S8 which has been recorded as a tank and in respect of which patta had been given, must extend to the entire area of 10.83 acres covered by this survey number and that the effect of section 14-A of the Act was not that a patta could be granted in respect of an area which is not covered by water is the tank or the ooranies. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent herein has contended that