MANAI THELUNGU CHETTY COMMUNITY OF URAIYUR TRICHY Vs. ARULMIGU RANGANATHASWAMY AT SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM SRIRANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. T. A. No. 50 of 1986: The above appeal has been filed under Sec. 50 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1963. The lands in question are indisputably comprised in a dharmadayam grant confirmed by the Government in T. D. No. 1075. The inam has been notified under Sec. 1 (4) of the Act with effect from 15. 2. 1965 from which date towards the inam stood abolished. Since there was no claim, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar, III (SB), Tiruchi and there has been due publication of the notice in terms of the Act and the Rules. Only the respondent temple applied and after considering the claims on merits, the original Authority directed the issue of patta in favour of the respondent temple under Sec. 8 (2) (ii) read with Sec. 11 (2) (b) of the Act.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed C. A. No. 4 of 1985 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Trichy (Sub Court, Trichy ). THE appeal against the order dated 22. 8. 1969 granting patta in favour of the respondent/ temple as noticed above, came to be filed on 19. 6. 1985. THE stand taken for the appellant before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal below was that the appellant as not issued with any notice of the proceedings or orders passed by the original authority on 22. 8. 1969 and that therefore, the period or limitation prescribed under Sec. 30 cannot run against the appellant. Reliance appears to have been placed by the appellant on a decision of this Court reported in pandurangu Chetti and another v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of North Arcot, 91 L. W. 368. Learned Tribunal below was of the view that the said decision will have no application in view of the fact that unlike in the reported case, the appellant herein has been put on notice by the respondent temple of the grant of patta and in spite of the same, the appellant was indifferent without getting activated and being vigilant in taking steps to obtain a copy or file an appeal within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the appeal filed is barred by limitation. Hence the above appeal.