S SIVASANKARAN PILLAI Vs. ARULMIGHU THIAGARAJAR DEVASTHANAM TIRUVARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed the above appeal under Sec. 46 of the Tamil Nadu 26 of 1963. THE lands in question situated at Ilavangargudi is admittedly an existing inam estate notified in G. O. Ms. No. 958 Revenue dated 21. 3. 1977 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. THE proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory Enquiries) and after considering the conflicting claims of the first respondent Devasthanam and the appellant, by an order dated 14. 10. 1978 patta was directed to be granted in respect of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. THE Devasthanam filed an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam in C. M. A. No. 33 of 1979 which by an order dated 23. 8. 1980 came to be allowed and while setting aside the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal to the original authority. THEreupon, the assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Thanjavur who came to be the competent authority to consider such claims conducted the enquiry afresh and allowed the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant under Sec. 12 (1) read with sec. 10 (1) (ii) of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. THE Assistant Settlement Officer was of the view that in as much as the appellant took the lands in auction on lease agreeing to pay the rent to the temple in the year 1952 and has been continuing in possession and has also claimed benefits for reduction of rent under the Tanjore Pannaiyal Protection Act (Act 14 of 1952) the appellant must be considered to be entitled to patta on account of his continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands from 1952 retaining for himself the cultivated share of the produce. THE Assistant Settlement Officer was also of the view that he was paying the rent in kind to the temple even before the notified date and since the cultivators share was retained by him it amounted to the appellant being entitled to kudiwaram interest and consequently he must be deemed to have held the lands as ryot only.

(2.) AGGRIEVED the first respondent Devasthanam filed cm. A. (IAT) No. 32 of 1982 on the file of the Tribunal (Sub-Court, Nagapattinam ). The Tribunal by its order dated 7. 7. 1984 set aside the order of the Assistant settlement Officer and directed the issue of ryotwari patta in favour of the first respondent temple on the view that the oral evidence as well as the records made available at the time of enquiry before the authorities below established that the Devasthanam alone owned the lands and the appellant who was only a cultivating tenant having taken such rights in auction and bound by the terms of the lease granted praying the rental in terms of the lease deed cannot be held to be a ryot in possession of kudiwaram rights and consequently the appellant was not entitled to patta. Hence the above appeal.