The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of an aggrieved party under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963 and the requirement for compliance with the Act and Rules in issuing pattas.

M. Jaichandren, J.

This Special Tribunal Appeal has been filed, before this Court, against the order and decreetal order, dated 08.12.2006, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, on the file of Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai. The respondents 1 and 6 in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2014 are the appellants herein.

2. The Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, to have a full-fledged enquiry, in respect of the issues that had arisen for its decision. The appeal, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, had been filed, under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said appeal had been filed against the order, dated 01.09.1983, passed by the third respondent, namely, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, in respect of Survey Nos.65/16 and 65/17 of Kalanivasal Village, in Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3. Pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court, dated 15.12.2005, in S.T.A.(M.D).No.1 of 2005 and S.T.P.(M.D).No.1 of 2005, this Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the aspect as to whether the appellant, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, namely, Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, could be considered as a person aggrieved, as per Section 12(2) of the Act, in respect of the property to which pattas had been granted in favour of one Kalyani and Nagappan, who are the appellants before this Court. Based on the submissions made and in view of the documents filed on behalf of the parties concerned, the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, is an aggrieved party, as per Section 12(2) of the Act. Having held so, the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, to conduct a full-fledged enquiry, based on the documentary evidence available. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal, before this Court.

4. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, had submitted that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, mechanically, without proper application of mind. The directions issued by this Court, dated 15.11.2005, made in S.T.A(MD).No.1 of 2005, while disposing of the appeal, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, had not been taken into consideration, by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the appellants ought to have seen that they had raised the issue relating to locus standi of Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, the first respondent in the present appeal, in filing the Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, challenging the order, dated 01.09.1983, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, in SR.No.10/Karaikudi/1983. It had been stated that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar had no interest, whatsoever, in the land in question and therefore, he had no right to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, granting patta in favour of the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar had no right in the lands in question, in view of the fact that his father had sold five acres of land, which had been claimed by him, as per the judgment and decree, in the partition suit, in O.S.No.102 of 1946. He had further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, for conducting a fresh enquiry, contrary to the spirit of the judgment of this Court, made in S.T.A.(M.D).No.1 of 2005.

6. Per contra, Mr.R.Thirugnanasambantham, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are devoid of merits. The issuance of pattas,