The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of revenue records and settlement proceedings to determine the classification of land and the application of Section 14-A of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 in granting patta.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P(MD).No.5394 of 2012: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and quash the order passed by the second respondent in his order dated 30.12.2011, Ref.No.K1/34483/2003-1 in respect of properties bearing Survey Numbers 434/6 and 435/2 in accordance with law.

W.P(MD).No.8495 of 2012: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in Ref.No.K1/34483/2003-1 dated 30.12.2011 and quash the same in respect of properties in Gurunathanaickanur Village, Dindigul Taluk, bearing Survey Nos.434/6 and 435/2.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein under which a patta has been granted in favour of the respondents 5 and 6.

2. The contentions of the petitioners are as follows:

(i).Survey Nos.435/2 and 434/6 in Gurunathanaikanur Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District have been classified as Ayyappa Naicken Kulam. The tank is the source of irrigation for the petitioners and others for their agricultural properties in Survey Nos. 426, 446 to 448, 670 and other survey numbers. The said lands originally belonged to Kannivadi Zamin.

(ii).The petitioners have further contended that the said Zamin was taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Act 26 of 1948 and Patta was granted under Section 11 of the said Act in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 ignoring the fact that it is a tank.

(iii).Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 was amended by way of amended Act 49 of 1974 and Section 14-A was inserted. As per Section 14-A, no ryotwari Patta could be granted for the private tank or Oorani. In case, if any ryotwari Patta has already been granted under Act 26 of 1948, the same shall stand automatically cancelled. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai after hearing the respondents 4 and 5 had cancelled the patta granted to the respondents 4 and 5 by way of an order dated 10.05.1976. The respondents 4 and 5 have challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has confirmed the order on 03.11.1980. The order passed by the Board of Revenue was challenged in W.P.No.71 of 1981 which was allowed on 24.07.1987 remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.

(iv).After fresh consideration, the second respondent herein had confirmed the order of cancellation of patta on 07.01.2003 which was challenged in W.P.No.15199 of 2003 by the respondents 4 and 5 herein. Once again, the High Court was pleased to remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Land Administration by an order dated 22.06.2011. After the second remand, the Commissioner of Land Administration had passed an order granting patta in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 herein by an order dated 30.12.2011. The said order is being challenged in W.P(MD).Nos.8495 and 5394 of 2012.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Survey numbers in dispute are tank poramboke and patta was originally granted in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 . After introduction of Section 14-A, the proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Settlement Officer and patta were cancelled. During the first round of litigation in W.P.No.71 of 1981, this Court was pleased to remit the matter back with a specific direction that the Board of Revenue should find out how the lands in question stood registered in the revenue records on the date of vesting under Act 26 of 1948. In the second round of litigation, in W.P.No. 15299 of 2003, this Court had again set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration on the ground that the direction issued in the previous round of litigation has not been complied with by the Board of Revenue.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that in the impugned order, the second respondent herein ha