STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A V YAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal really arises under Sec. 46 of the Tamil nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil nadu Act 26 of 1963) though by mistake in the Memorandum of grounds of appeal the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 is given. THE claim in respect of the land in question had been the subject-matter of appeals before the Tribunal below on earlier occasions and by virtue of the orders passed in second round of appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur has taken up the matter for consideration afresh. After considering the claims of both parties viz. , the respondents/claimant and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the district Collector, Thanjavur, the Original Authority by his proceedings dated 1. 6. 82 held that there is no scope for granting patta in respect of the land in question under Secs. 9, 10 or 11 and that by virtue of Sec. 12 (1) and under sec. 3 (b) of the Act, the lands vest absolutely free of encumbrances with the state. THE Original S. T. Appeal by State allowed. Authority came to such a conclusion on the basis that the lands in question (sic) are as per the state on ground is only an irrigation channel and there is, no dispute or controversy among the parties before the authorities below that the lands are used for collecting water was catchment area and also as irrigation channel. Aggrieved the respondent has filed an appeal before the Tribunal below (Sub-Court, thanjavur) in C. M. A. No. 79 of 1982. THE Tribunal below, though found factually that the lands in question are used as catchment area for collecting water to be used for irrigation purposes and as irrigation channel also, on the view that it is only a private irrigation source and a channel, the Tribunal differed from the decision of the Original Authority and directed the grant of patta in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved the State has filed the above appeal.

(2.) THOUGH notice of the appeal has been served on the respondent, he has not taken any steps to engage any counsel to defend the proceedings.