V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. These Special Tribunal Appeals (in short, 'STAs') arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 27.10.1978 made in C.M.A.Nos.7, 17 and 18 of 1977 on the file of the Inam Abolition Tribunal (I.A.T.).

2. As all the STAs arise out of a common judgment, they are now taken up for disposal by a common judgment.

3. Of the six STAs taken up for disposal, two STAs in S.T.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 1979 are filed by two different parties; three STAs in S.T.A.Nos.105 to 107 of 1979 are filed by Abisheka Kattalai attached to Sri Thiyagarajaswami Devesathanam, Thirurvarur and S.T.A.No.34 of 1980 is filed by one D.Rajagopala Iyer.

4. Facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are thus:

4.1. Initially, in a suo motu enquiry instituted under the provisions of Act 26/63, the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur passed orders in R.P.No.130 and 186/IA/NGT/71, dated 15.02.1972 allowing ground patta in the name of Sri Thiyagarajaswamy Devasthanam, Thiruvarur, represented by its Executive Officer and vesting the superstructure thereon by one Mohammed Farook and his brothers and sisters in respect of the schedule mentioned lands. Aggrieved by the said decision, one D.Rajagopala Iyer, son of Dharma Iyer, the claimant in C.M.A.No.369/1972 took the matter on appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam on the ground that no finding was given by the Assistant Settlement Officer with regard to his claim for grant of patta. Similarly, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1/1973, viz. Mohammed Farook and others moved the Inam Abolition Tribunal on appeal against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer on the ground that no proper notice of the proceedings before the Lower Court was given to the claimants actually interested in the properties and that the order was liable to be set aside for want of following the provisions under Rules 9(4) and (5) of Act 26/63. The Inam Abolition Tribunal allowed the appeal and passed orders in C.M.A.No.1/1973 remanding the case back to the Lower Court for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law.

4.2. The claimants in C.M.A.No.2/1973, aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer in respect of T.S.No.746/1, preferred an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam representing that no notice of the proceedings before the Lower Court was personally served on the claimants actually interested in the property and that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was liable to be set aside for want of observance of the provisions under Rules 9(4) and 9(5) of the Act. The Inam Abolition Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law vide order dated 15.09.1975 in C.M.A.No.2/1973.

4.3. The Settlement Tahsildar (SE), Thanjavur vide order dated 16.11.1976 made in R.P.Nos.130 and 186/IA/NGT/71, disposed of the Review Petitions with the following observation:

“11. I made a careful appraisal of the different materials placed before me and heard the arguments advanced on different sides. The points for consideration are (1) Whether the lands belonged to the institution as private lands as on the notified date and (2) as to who was entitled to the vestiture of the site and the superstructure in these lands.

Point No.1:

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants in C.M.A.1/73 and 2/73, it is the established legal position as borne out by the highest judicial forums that the Iruwaram lands need not necessarily be private lands. The onus of proof that the lands belonged to the institution as private lands as on the notified date rested on the institution only. The private lands are either domain or home farm lands. These are not lands situated around the residence of the landholder and hence are not domain lands. They are also not home farm lands in the absence of direct cultivation by the institution and in the context of their happening to be built up sites. Hence the inst