THIRUVADUTHURAI ADHEENAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landholder Adheenam was filed an appeal under Sec.30 of the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1983, aggrieved against the order of remand passed by the Inams Abolition Tribunal/Sub Court, Tirunelveli. THE lands in question are comprised in Dharmadayam grant confirmed in T.S.No.272 in Esanamadam Village and that Inam was said to have been granted with both warams for the maintenance of Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam in Thiruvavaduthurai Village. THE lands comprised are said to be in S.No.838. THE Settlement Tahsildar II, Kovilpatti, has allowed patta under Sec. 11 read with Sec.8(1) of the Act in favour of the appellants on the ground that the land was found to be in the enjoyment of the Adheenam and there was no rival claimant or objector. While that be the position, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its District Collector, Tirunelveli, filed an appeal in E.A.T. A.T No.8 of 1981 on the ground that there was some suppression of materials resulting in the rights of the State being defeated necessitating fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law. THE learned tribunal below, after careful and elaborate consideration of the matter, was of the view that their claim in respect of the land requires to be considered in the contest of Sec. 13 of the Act and not under Sec.8(1) of the Act and that the order of the authority below is liable to be set aside and the matter remitting for consideration afresh. As a matter of fact, while remanding the matter, the tribunal has made it clear that both parties are entitled to adduce evidence afresh in support of their respective claims. Not satisfied with the order of the tribunal below, the above appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant adheenam vehemently contended that the appeal case to be filed after a long lapse of time and even in the absence of any specified period of limitation for the State to come on appeal, the provision should be on construed as to read a reasonable period of limitation even for the State and in this case, the time lag was substantial and therefore, the tribunal ought not to have countenanced the appeal for consideration on merits and interfered with the orders of the original authority.