VALATHAR MOOPANAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF SETTLEMENTS, AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Veeraswami, J. declining to remove on certiorari an order of the Board of Revenue affirming that of the Director of Settlements, who in his turn, affirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer refusing to grant a ryotwari patta to the appellants under S. 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. The facts giving rise to this appeal are shortly these. Musalavanodai, which was a part of the Sivagangai Zamindari, was granted en a permanent cowle to the predecessor -in -title of the appellants by Rani Kathama Nachiar of Sivaganga on a fixed rental of Rs. 37 -2 -0 per year. The document recites that this village with wet and dry lands was lying waste for some time on account of litigation in respect of the Zamindari and that the Rant felt that the estate could not profitably undertake the repair of the tank, which was the source of irrigation to these lands, and, whose bunds were breached, and that, the grantee could repair the bunds and enjoy the lands, wet and dry, on payment of poruppu indicated in that document. Subsequently the grantee appears to have repaired the irrigation source and brought the land under cultivation.

(2.) After the abolition of this estate the appellants invoked S. 11 of the Estates Abolition Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta for the wet and dry lands comprised in the village. They also sought a similar relief in regard to this tank which measures about 90 acres of land. This request of the appellants rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the ground that no ryotwari patta could issue in respect of a tank. This was affirmed by the Director of Settlements whose re -visional jurisdiction was invoked by the appellant. The further revision to the Board was unfruitful. The Board of Revenue expressed the view that the tank was not included in the holding and as such any improvement effected to the tank did not clothe the appellant with a right to claim a ryotwari patta in regard thereto. The Board also expressed the opinion that the appellants were entitled only to such rights as were conferred on them under the Abolition Act and that the Abolition Act does not contemplate the issue of a ryotwari patta in respect of the tank. It is to quash this order of the Board of Revenue that the writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed by the aggrieved ryots.

(3.) Our learned brother Veeraswami, J. concurred in the opinion of the Board of Revenue that the tank was not included in the holding of the appellants and as such Sec. 25 of the Madras Estates Land Act was unavailable to them. It is this conclusion of our learned brother that is assailed before us by Sri Vedantachari.