Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, T.KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Collector of Pudukkottai - Appellant
Versus
Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias Vaidyanatha Iyer and Ors - Respondent
S.T.A.No.1 of 1999 and S.T.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011
Decided on : 18-07-2018
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 1963 - Section 30 -Inam Abolition- Assistant Settlement Officer through his proceedings directed for grant of ryotwari patta in the name of the Time-Being Trustee of Nallur Chatram for all the lands mentioned in the schedule of the order, under Section 11(2)(b) read with Section 8(5) of the Act 30/63, subject to the condition laid down in Section 21 of the Act. Against the said order, after nearly 20 years, an appeal was preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Pudukkottai before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Pudukkottai. The Tribunal, by its order, confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, and dismissed the appeal – Held, action of the appellant in pursuing matter is liable to be rejected, even on the sole ground of delay and laches. The Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order - However, without filing an appeal within one year from the date of date of the decision, as provided under Section 11(3), the very appeal before the Tribunal itself was filed after nearly 11 years. The said aspect was considered by the Tribunal and found that the appeal was also barred by time. It is true that the appeal was not dismissed only on the ground of limitation, but also by considering the merits of the matter. Though such an order was passed by the Tribunal the present appeal was filed before this Court nearly after four years and got it numbered only in the year 1999, i.e, after 12 years from the date of filing. This conduct of the appellant would show that they are not so serious about the matter and thus this appeal is filed for the sake of filing an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in order to give quietus to the legal battle -Dismissal will not prevent the appellant herein or any other aggrieved person to initiate proceedings against the holders of the ryotwari patta, the subject-matter herein, based on the present state of facts and circumstances, if such facts and circumstances give scope for interference with the patta already granted. It is an admitted fact that thought the claimant namely, the said Vaidyanatha Sastri claimed patta in his individual name, the Assistant Settlement Officer found that the same is not permissible, in view of the fact that the said claimant was functioning as a trustee to look after the trust land in pursuant to the scheme decree passed by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. The Assistant Settlement Officer has also pointed out that the lands are not alienable - Dismissed
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 1963 (herein after called as ''the Act'') against the order, dated 16.07.1983, passed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub-Court), Pudukkottai, confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, dated 01.05.1972.
2. The Assistant Settlement Officer through his proceedings in RP No.319A/72, dated 01.05.1972, directed for grant of ryotwari patta in the name of the Time-Being Trustee of Nallur Chatram for all the lands mentioned in the schedule of the order, except the land in S.No.118/7 of Lakshmanapatti village, under Section 11(2)(b) read with Section 8(5) of the Act 30/63, subject to the condition laid down in Section 21 of the Act. Against the said order, after nearly 20 years, an appeal was preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Pudukkottai before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Pudukkottai. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 10.07.1983, confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
3. Perusal of the records pertains to the present appeal would show that this appeal itself was filed on 14.07.1997 i.e., nearly after a period of 14 years from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. Probably, after condoning the delay, this appeal might have been numbered by the Registry.
4. The case of the appellant is as follows:-
The subject matter lands are minor inams. An extent of 208.60 acres were registered as inam in Nallurchatram village and the inamdar was given all the privileges attached to Brahmadayam inams as notified by the Durbar in the Notification of the year 1903. The original inamdar Appavu Ayyar had been the owner of Sarvamanyam lands in several villages and he surrendered the inam lands to the Durbar and got the lands in question in exchange by means of Sannads. His family later instituted Charity of Nallur. There is no direct grant to the charity. The ex-durbar settled this inam jointly in the name of trustee and two of the living heirs of the original inamdar in case No.103. After the advent of Act 30/63, inam lands were vested with the State on and from 02.02.1966. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, therefore, took suo motu action and after an enquiry, directed to issue ryotwari patta for an extent of about 1,501.60 acres in favour of the trustee, Nallur Chatram. Some of the lands have been let on waram on payment of rent in cash. The tenants have been selling and mortgaging lands among themselves and they were not disturbed at any point of time. In the year 1983, suits were filed against the tenants for the recovery of loans. In 1946, lands were surveyed and registered in the names of the respective tenants. Therefore, neither the inamdar nor ex-durbar ever interfered with the right of the tenants and the inamdars never exercised exclusive Kudivaram rights. The Assistant Settlement Officer erred in treating the lands as service tenure lands within the scope of Section 8(5) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer failed to note that the lands were at its inception purchased by Appavu Ayyar. The persons, who are in actual possession and enjoyment of the land, were not enquired into and no notice was issued to them. Likewise, no notice was issued to the Tahsildar either. Publication of general notice is not sufficient, especially when specific objections have been raised before the Assistant Settlement Officer by the tenants. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is vitiated for non-conformity with the principles of natural justice.
5. The case of the contesting respondents is as follows:-
The subject matter lands are minor inam lands. The same was granted by the Pudukkottai Durbar in the name of one Brahadambal Ammal for carrying on Charity namely, feeding wayfarers at a Chatram at Nallur. After the de
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
