Revenue authorities have no power to mutate patta in respect of land covered under settlement proceedings under the Inam Estates Act while appeals are pending; such action is ultra vires.

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.Lakshminarayanan J.)

We heard Mr.R.Balaramesh for the appellant and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 5 to 10.

2. This intra Court appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9675 of 2023 dated 23.07.2024.

3. The appellant before us is the 7^th respondent in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranks in the writ petition.

4. The writ petitioners are four in number. They claim to be the children of one Ramasamy. According to them, the property situated in, Survey No.138/1 of Nallanahalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk and District, belonged to their father Ramasamy. Patta and other revenue records stood in his name. Ramasamy died on 25.03.1991 leaving behind 12 legal heirs including the writ petitioners. They pleaded that the aforesaid land was treated as Inam estate by virtue of Madras Estate Lands (III Amendment) Act of 1936. Subsequently, with the passing of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, enquiry was commenced before the Assistant Settlement Officer at Salem in S.R.No.119 of 1969. Ramasamy had filed a petition claiming Patta under Section 10(1) and (11) of Act 26 of 1963. One Syed Ahmed Basha filed a counter claim for the lands. By an order dated 15.06.1981, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted Patta to Syed Ahmed Basha, Syed Mahboob and Syed Marqub.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, Ramasamy had preferred an appeal to the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge at Krishnagiri in C.M.A.(IAT) No.10 of 1981. The learned Subordinate Judge clubbed this appeal along with few other appeal and passed a common order on 05.11.1985. He allowed the appeals filed by Ramasamy and remitted the matter to the Settlement Tahsildar for fresh disposal. He directed the Settlement Tahsildar to strictly adhere to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in S.T.A.No.8 to S.T.A.No.18 of 1975. The writ petitioners claimed that, post the remand, the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Dharapuram conducted an enquiry and allowed the claim of Ramasamy in part, on 10.09.1987.

6. On a further appeal by Ramasamy, the appeal came to be allowed on 28.06.1990. Pursuant thereof, Ramasamy was also granted Patta in Patta No.1091. They alleged that the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram had been challenged by the 7^th respondent / writ appellant before the Inam Abolition Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge at Krishnagiri in C.M.A.(IAT) No.1 of 1991 and 2 of 1991. Further, appeals have allegedly been preferred to this Court and the appeals are alleged to be pending.

7. The petitioners state that the 7^th respondent had moved the third respondent for grant of Patta, who rejected the same on 28.02.1990. The third respondent further directed that the 7^th respondent could renew his request for Patta after the proceedings challenging CMA (LAT) 1 of 1991 and CMA (LAT) 2 of 1991 are concluded. The petitioners alleged that, instead of pursuing the alleged S.T.As, the 7^th respondent yet again approached the 3^rd respondent for transfer of patta in his name. They state that, without notice to the petitioners, the patta was mutated in favour of the 7^th respondent on 21.12.2001. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition. This Court entertained the writ petition and directed the respondents to file counter.

8. The 5^th respondent viz., Tahsildar, Dharmapuri filed a counter that, as per the records available with them, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem had passed an order in favour of the father of the 7^th respondent viz., Ahmed Basha by an order dated 15.06.1981. Thereafter, during the updating of Land Data Registry Scheme, which was prevalent between 1979 and 1999, Patta was transferred in the name of the 7^th respondent’s father. He urged that, against the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, the father of the petitioners had preferred