RAMASWAMI GOUNDAR Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SETTLEMENTS AND LAND REFORMS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope of this writ petition lies within a narrow compass and it will be sufficient to set out the facts briefly to the extent that is necessary for the disposal of the points in controversy. The petitioner Ramaswami Gounder relied on two pattas granted by the proprietor of the Rasipuram estate. Patta 726 was granted in respect of 10 acres situated in S. No. 172/9 of the former inam estate of Rasipuram village by an order of assignment by the proprietor in 1943, a date prior to 1st July, 1945, and Patta No. 730 was granted in respect of 4 acres 5 cents situated in the same S. No. 172/9, by an order of the proprietor on 4th September, 1945, subsequent to 1st July, 1945. The Rasipuram estate was notified and taken over by the Madras State under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) with effect on and from 3rd January, 1951. Pursuant to the above, the estate, was surveyed and S. No. 172/9 was found to be a tank -bed. Relying on the strength of the order of the former proprietor granting the aforesaid pattas, the petitioner applied to the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of ryotwari patta to him in respect of the said lands under Section 11 of the Abolition Act. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the application on 3rd March, 1958. The appeal before the Settlement Officer was dismissed on 13th June, 1958, and a further appeal to the Director of Settlements was dismissed on 2 1st January, 1959. Finally the Board of Revenue in revision also dismissed the petitioner's application by an order elated 10th December, 1963. The petitioner contends that, by an order dated 25th March, 1948, passed by the Deputy Collector, Namakkal in an application under Section 20(1) of the Estates Land Act, the above said land had been held to be not tank -bed land, falling within Section 3(16)(a) of the Estates Land Act and that the petitioner was not liable to be evicted therefrom. Since no suit was filed to challenge this order of the Deputy Collector in the Civil Court, the above finding had become conclusive. The petitioner had carried out vast improvements on the said lands spending large sums of money. He had built a tiled shed and a terraced building; he had also dug three wells. In the above circumstances, it was contended that the petitioner was entitled to a ryotwari patta to the aforesaid lands under Section 11 of the Abolition Act and consequently the Board's order was liable to be quashed. It is urged that the Board of Revenue as well as the Settlement Authorities when called upon to exercise their powers under Section 11 of the Abolition Act had failed to take into account the relevant data and that if they had done so, they would have determined that the lands in question were not tank -bed lands but ryotwari lands in the occupation of the petitioner on the date of the notification and therefore he should have been granted a ryotwari patta. The prayer in this petition is therefore to quash the order of the Board of Revenue by a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the Board of Revenue, it is urged that the Board of Revenue as well as the Settlement Authorities had taken into account all the relevant data for their conclusion, as well as the relevant tests which the decisions of Court have laid down for dealing with a similar matter. It is also urged that no finality is attached to the order of the Deputy Collector in the proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Estates Land Act referred to by the petitioner both by reason of the actual finding of the Deputy Collector and by reason of the fact that the Government was not a party to that proceeding. The Board also averred that the petitioner had applied to the Board of Revenue as an alternative prayer that in View of the fact that he had put up substantial structures on the land, his position might be examined under the provisions of Section 19 -A of the Abolition Act and appropriate directions passed thereunder to ensure his continuance in possession.

(3.) THE first point for consideration is the effect of the order of the Deputy Collector in Section 20 proceedings under the Estates Land Act passed in 1948 in M.P. No. 2 of 1945. Section 20 reads thus: