LAWS(SC)-1990-2-9

DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER MADRAS Vs. MUTHUKUMARASWAMY MUDALIAR

Decided On February 01, 1990
Deputy Salt Commissioner Madras Appellant
V/S
MUTHUKUMARASWAMY MUDALIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of two Judges of the Madras High court forming Special Appellate tribunal under S. 30 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963. The dispute relates to the nature of a vast area of land, fully detailed in the records of the present case, and the claim of the respondents thereto.

(2.) After holding a suo motu inquiry under S. 11 of the Act 30 of 1963 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram, held by his order dated 6/05/1983 that the present respondents were entitled to get a ryotwari patta under S. 8 (1 of the said Act. The appellant, Deputy Salt Commissioner, filed an appeal on behalf of the government of India against this order under S. 11 (3 of the Act, which was dismissed on 20/12/1983 by the Minor Inams tribunal (sub-court, Chinglepet). A further appeal under S. 30 was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The disputed land was recorded in the survey papers under Survey No. 918 (revised Survey No. 918/2 as Salt Pan Paramboke and it appears that the respondents challenged the same as erroneous by a letter dated 13/10/1973 addressed to the Director of Settlement, Madras. The Settlement Officer, Thanzavur, passed an order dated 13/10/1982 holding that the entry Salt Pan Paramboke was wrongly made. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the concerned estate wherein the disputed land is included was notified and taken over by the government in 1952 under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948 the order was passed belatedly after three decades. Besides, questioning the power of the Settlement Officer, it is also urged that the said order having been passed without impleading the appellant or the State government is non-est in the eye of law and is fit to be completely ignored; and the impugned order should be set aside because strong reliance has been placed therein, on the said order.