M SUBBAKANNU Vs. P L RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land is dispute in these proceedings is S.No.288, which in the revenue records is shown as having an area of 10-83 acres and is recorded as a tank. After Act 26 of 1948 came into force, the first respondent herein, who has filed the writ petition for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, was granted a patta on 31st December, 1958 in respect of the said land which is described in the order of the Assistnat Settlement Officer as Oorani and the appurtenant sites. A condition was attached to this patta that the grantee should continue to maintain Oorani for the sake of the villagers and others. By an amendment to Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, made by Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1974, a new provision was introduced as section 14-A in the Act. In section 14-A(1) it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or Oorani. Sub-section (2) with which we are concerned, reads as follows:

(2.) This order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the first respondent in the writ petition. In the writ petition the learned single Judge of this Court took the view that it was not the case of any one that the entire extent of 10-83 acres was covered by the oorani and therefore, according to him the proper and just order to be passed was to limit the operation of the order of the Board of Revenue to the actual extent covered by both Ooranies. This extent was directed to be determined by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti. It was directed that patta will be issued to the first respondent herein after demarcating the actual extent. This order is now challenged in this appeal by the third respondent in the writ petition (original revision petitioner before the Board of Revenue) in this appeal.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the pattu had to be cancelled in respect of the actual area covered by the ooranies. The argument is that survey ‘o.2S8 which has been recorded as a tank and in respect of which patta had been given, must extend to the entire area of 10.83 acres covered by this survey number and that the effect of section 14-A of the Act was not that a patta could be granted in respect of an area which is not covered by water is the tank or the ooranies. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent herein has contended that he was entitled to a patta of the surrounding area excluding the area covered by water and though section 14-A may be operative in respect of the area covered by the Ooranies, land, which, according to him, was appurtenant land, was still available for the grant of patta. It is also argued that after the order of the learned Judge, demarcation has already been made and a separate area which is not covered by the ooranies has been carved out and has been given S.No.288/1 having an area of 5.87 acres. The argument of the learned Counsel for the first respondent appears to be that, when section 14-A cancels the patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani, the operation of the provision is restricted only to the actual area covered by the tank water or the oorani. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is not in dispute that what was has been described in S.No.288 in the Revenue records is surrounded by fields belonging to the different owners. S.No.288 has been exclusively recorded as a tank. The old revenue records do not show that any part of it was cultivated at any time or any crop has been raised. We have before us the original records of the year 1951 and the column with regard to the crops is blank. There is a presumption of correctness attached to this record and we must proceed on the assumption that in 1951 the entire survey No.288 constituted a tank.