V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. These Special Tribunal Appeals (for short, 'STAs') arise out of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court (Tribunal), in setting aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, who in exercise of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) and the Rules framed thereunder, granted vesting of sites in favour of the persons as shown in the schedule to the petitions therein.

2. For the purpose of convenience, it is useful to refer the pleadings in a nut-shell in S.T.A.No.33 of 1976, which are almost common in all the other appeals. The case of the individuals, some of whom are the appellants herein, before the Settlement Tahsildar is that the Survey Numbers in question situated in Tiruppur Village (Town Limits) were granted for the support of the Pagoda of Sri Visweswaraswami and Sri Veeraragha Perumal at Tiruppur for rendering Ugrana service in the Temple and the grant was permanently confirmed so long as the performance of the service was continued. The Settlement Tahsildar of Gobichettipalayam allowed Ryotwari patta in favour of the enjoyers of the land(s) under the provisions of the said Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, which was set aside by the Inams Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. Subsequently, upon re-enquiry and further evidence, and based on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.369 of 1966 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the Settlement Tahsildar held that there is a coalescence of ownership of the building(s) in question as well as the site(s) on which the building(s) stand and it was further held that the land owners and the building owners jointly became entitled to the building(s), that the building(s) as they exist were constructed by the lessees doing the business in the respective sites who have claimed the superstructures, that the grant is in favour of the named individuals for rendering service in the Temple, that as regards the vacant sites, the person or institution claiming Kudivaram enjoyment, would be entitled to patta under the said Act and the site used as public road or pathway or Well as the case may be, would also be ordered under the said Act and in exercise of the provisions of the said Act/Rules thereunder, he directed that the building(s) in question that exists in the site(s) as shown in the respective schedules to the petition, are declared to vest with the persons shown thereunder in the petitions and that the Government is entitled to levy the appropriate assessment from the Fasli year commencing from the Fasli on which the appointed day falls, that in respect of the vacant sites which lie vacant as on 15.02.1965, the person or institution enjoying the Kudivaram in respect of the site(s) shown in the schedule, would be entitled to patta under the said Act and that the site(s) shown in the schedule, which are either used as road or pathway or dilapidated Well, were disallowed Ryotwari patta under the said Act.

3. Challenging the above order of the Settlement Tahsildar, some of the individuals went on appeal before the first appellate Court (Tribunal), which upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence available on record, set aside the above order of the original authority (Settlement Tahsildar), against which, the present STAs are filed by the appellants.

4. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Amicus Curiae/Senior Counsel enlightened upon this Court on various provisions of the said Act and made his submissions on the powers of this Court and that of the Courts below (Tribunal/original authority) in passing orders and he relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions:

(a) 2005 (2) SCC 591 (Jamshed N.Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra):

"18. Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that there is an anomaly created by, or deficiency found in Section 3 of the 1986 Act in