KEDARISWARAN Vs. NADANAPATHEESWARAR TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants numbering 97 are villagers of Thirukandeeswaram near Panruti in South Arcot District. THEy claim patta to various items of Survey Numbers annexed to the order passed by the Settlement Tahsiidar. THEre was a suo motu enquiry originally by the Settlement Tahsiidar, Thanjavur, under section 11 of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By order, dated 30th December, 1970, the Settlement Tahsiidar, after enquiry, found that the lands in question viz., S. Nos. 419/2-A, 421 and 419|2-B, are in the use of the villagers and as such, none is entitled to the issue of ryotwari patta under section 7 of the Act. Hence, the Settlement Tahsiidar directed that these lands shall continue to vest with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. As against this order, the first respondent herein filed an appeal in I.A.T.A. No. .91 of 1971 before the Inams Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. THE appeal was dismissed for default on 26th February, 1974. Exhibit R-19 is the order passed by the Settlement Tahsiidar and Exhibit R-20 is the order passed in the appeal by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for default.

(2.) IT is clear from the facts of the case that pending the appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal, the first respondent herein has moved the Settlement Tahsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry stating that it was withdrawing the appeal pending before the Tribunal. IT is also clear from the records that a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar and in that fresh enquiry, patta was directed to be granted in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of the survey numbers which were originally directed to be vested with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. As against this grant of patta, the appellants herein preferred an appeal to the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore. Before the Tribunal, the appellants took up a preliminary objection stating that the Settlement Tahsildar has no powers to rescind the order passed by him as early as 30th December, 1970, and as such, the grant of patta in favour of the first respondent herein for these survey numbers has to be set aside. This preliminary objection was over-ruled by the Tribunal observing that the second enquiry by the Settlement Tahsildar is not barred by res judicata, that further some of the appellants herein had taken part in the proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar and they have given evidence in support of their claim for issue of ryotwari patta in their favour and that the subsequent order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar is not vitiated by any irregularity nor barred by res judicata. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar. IT is as against the grant of patta by the authorities below, the appellants have preferred the above appeal.

(3.) MR. Annamalai, learned counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the Settlement Tahsildar power to review his order when once the relevant documents are clear to the effect that the grant was in favour of the first respondent and by section 4 of the Act, it has to be presumed that the grant was in respect of both the warams. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to this contention made by the learned counsel for the first respondent. We do not find any power for the Settlement Tahsildar to review his own order which has been already taken by way of appeal to the Tribunal and that appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The fact that the Settlement Tahsildar has once again considered the grant of patta in respect of S. Nos. 419|2-A, 421 and 419/2-B will not in any way cure the defect inasmuch as there is absolutely no provision under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder for such course being adopted by Settelment Tahsildar. Section 16 (4) (ii) of the Act states: