ARULANDU UDAYAR Vs. S P PALANIAPPA AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARIYAKUDI, Idaiyaur and Vettiur were three villages forming part of the Sivaganga Zamindari. Sometime after the settlement of the Zamindari in 1801, the Zamindar granted in inam certain lands in these villages as a post-settlement dharmilla inam in favour of one Sadhananda Mudaliar. Though the original grant in favour of Sadhananda Mudaliar is not produced, it is evident from the later records that the entirety of the lands comprised in the grant or a major portion of it, were un-reclaimed waste lands and it was given to the grantee for the purpose of reclamation. The conditions of the cowl are not available, but we can safely presume from the subsequent records that Sadhananda Mudaliar was conferred only a kudiwaram interest, in the lands and the melwaram was still vested with the Zamindar. Subsequently, these three villages were granted to certain brahmins and ARIYAKUDI Sri Thiruvengada Mudayan Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Devasthanam') the 14th defendant in the suit. These three villages were later notified and taken over under The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), which will hereafter be referred to as the 'Act', as under-tenure estate. The classification of these villages, as an under tenure estate, was never in dispute. Since we have unimpeachable evidence that there was a grant of kudiwaram in favour of Sadhananda Mudaliar in respect of a portion of these villages, prior to the creation of the under-tenure estate, we have necessarily to take it that the grant in favour of the Devasthanam and the brahmins was not of both the warams or at least it did not cover both warams in respect of all the lands the villages. Under Exhibit A-1 dated 5th December, 1874, the Devasthanam purchased the kudiwaram right of Sadhananda Mudaliar from the legal heirs of the said person. It, therefore, follows that in respect of the lands purchased under Exhibit A-1 the Devasthanam had become the owner of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. The extent mentioned in Exhibit A-1 is 270 kurukkams, which is stated to be approximately equivalent to 150 acres, though the boundaries given are for the entirety of the three villages. Obviously, the discription of the boundaries covered a larger extent because what is covered by Exhibit A-1 was only part of the three villages and not the whole of them. The description should be understood therefore as implying that the lands are situated within the major boundaries of villages mentioned in the document. But what is relevant for our purpose is that by virtue of the purchase of the kudiwaram under Exhibit A-1, the Devasthanam had become the owner of both the melwaram and kudiwaram in respect of 270 kurukkams, covered by that document.

(2.) FOR laying the Railway track, the Government acquired certain lands in those villages. In the dispute relating to the right of payment of the compensation money, the Land Acquisition Court viz., the Sub-Court at Devakottai in O.P. Nos. 69 and 12 of 1932, 18, 30 to 33 and 35 of 1933 divided the lands acquired for purposes of determining the title in three groups after a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence available in which Exhibit A-1, filed in this case, was also filed as evidence. It was held that the Devathanam was the owner of both melwaram and kudiwaram in respect of the entirety of the lands covered under Exhibit A-1 and that therefore those lands, which are grouped under group numbers 1 and 2, which formed part of the properties covered by Exhibit A-1, belonged to the Devasthanam absolutely. The Land Acquisition Court also gave a finding that the lands in Group No. 3 though situated in the under-tenure villages of Ariyakudi, Idaiyaur and Vettiyur, are not covered by Exhibit A-1 and that the lands belonged to a group of persons, including Udayars and Vallambars. It appears an appeal was filed against this order, but that was dismissed. Since the dispute did not end even thereafter, the parties seem to have entered into an agreement on 1st February, 1945, which is marked as Exhibit A-3 in this case. Since that document is questioned as one brought about in order to avoid the impending legislation of abolition of estates and since Udayars were not parties to that document it is not necessary for us to rely on Exhibit A-

(3.) IN order to effectuate a ryotwari settlement it is necessary to decide the nature of the land in the estate, which is vested in the Government and the rights of the persons who are in occupation of the lands. As part of the settlement proceedings, therefore, the competent authorities would have to decide as to whether a particular land is a ryoti land or a private land or whether the land is a tank or other poramboke or non-ryoti land, as also whether the lands are waste, lanka, forests, rivers or other lands. This classification is necessary not only for the purpose of finding out the rights of the person if any in occupation but also for adopting or fixing rates of assessment in respect of each category of land. The determination of the rights of the person in occupation is also necessary in order to determine as to who the person is that is liable to pay the assessment in respect of the lands, which are subject to such assessment. While determining such nature of the land or the rights of the person in occupation, a dispute may arise either between the Government and the ryot, or between the Government and the landholder, or between the land-holder and the ryot or a triangular fight among all the three people. Such dispute may also relate either to the nature of the land alone or both with reference to the nature of the land as also to the right of the person who is in occupation, or a person claiming any right under the Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands and sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act deal with the grant of such patta in respect of private lands. The forum of determination, so far as private lands are concerned, is prescribed under section 15 of the Act, which authorises the Settlement Officer to examine the nature and history of the land in respect of which the landholder claim ryotwari patta under sections 12, 13 or 14 and provides for an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Settlement Officer. Though there is no such specific provision like section 15 of the Act with reference to the ryotwari patta, on an application by a ryot it is clear from the provisions of sections 3 (d) and 11 and the Rules published in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7, that the Assistant Settlement Officer is the competent authority to deal with an application under section 11 of the Act. The Act originally contained a provision in section 56, which enabled the settlement Officer to decide as to "who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding'is, but this provision was deleted in 1958 by Madras Act XXXVII of 1958.