L AMEER Vs. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against an order of the Inam Tribunal dated 22.11.1995. The property, subject matter of the dispute, is : Land in Old Paimash Nos.717, 718, 721 and 722 correlated to R.S. No,20/1 Part, present T.S. No.122, Ward-E, Block-I of Alandur Municipality, Adambakkam Village, measuring an extent of 14505 sq.mts. or thereabout, bounded on the North by land in Paimash No,859, correlated to T.S. No.105, belonging to the company, South by Railway line of Southern Railway, West by Water Channel, East by Tiruvotteeswarar Manickam land situated within the Registration District of South Madras and the Registration Sub District of Alandur.

(2.) ON 15.7.1991, the Assistant Settlement Officer at Tiruvannamalai passed an order in S.R. Nos.130 and 131 of 1988 granting patta under Section 13(1) of the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to the respondent-Company with respect to T.S. No.122 for an extent of 1.45.05 sq.mts. and T.S. No.105 for an extent of 1.0750.50 sq.mts. In the proceedings, the Inamdar, who was the Aadheena Kartha, Kundrakudi Adheenam Tiruvannamalai Mutt and the claimants, viz. the respondents and the appellants herein, took part. Earlier, in the proceedings which commenced on 31.7.1988 in respect of other lands including the property, subject matter of these appeals, the then Assistant Settlement Officer had, after conducting an enquiry, held over the matter since the appellants herein had requested that certain records had been filed in the civil proceedings. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer heard the parties and granted patta. Against that, an appeal was filed to the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. By order dated 31.12.1991, the Settlement Officer held that the existence of building over the land owned by either party should be proved and it must also be shown that they were in existence on or before the notified date, in order to attract the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act and since in this case, that was not proved beyond doubt, the Settlement Officer set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal. Against that, the respondents herein filed a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who, upon hearing the submissions made by the parties as well as the documents produced, found that the order of remand did not suffer from any infirmity. The Settlement Officer found that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting ground rent patta to the respondents herein insofar as T.S. No.105 was concerned was correct and the remand was restricted to T.S. No.122 which measures 1.4505 sq.mts. bearing R.S. No,20/1 correlating to Paimash Nos.717, 718, 721/3 and 722/2. We are concerned only with this property. It is this order that was confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Administration. After remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer, by order dated 9.9.1993, conducted the enquiry with relation to T.S. No.122 and held that the appellants were entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 80/1 for T.S. No.122. Against this, an appeal was filed under Section 11(3) before the Inam Tribunal. The order passed therein is challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to ryotwari patta and allowed the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even de hors the investigation report, if the Tribunal had entertained some doubt regarding the documents and found that the documents have been got up only for the purpose of the proceedings and they cannot be relied on, especially when there is no material to disturb that finding, even without going into the investigation report, the claim of the appellants should be rejected. LEARNED senior counsel submitted that when the Kudivaram right of the Inamdar has been denied by this Court, then it is not necessary for the respondents to show anything except the existence of buildings on the notified date as per Section 13 of the Act. LEARNED senior counsel further submitted that once the ingredients of Section 13 of the Act are satisfied, then ground rent patta must be granted. LEARNED senior counsel also submitted that no exception can be taken to the Tribunal ordering the grant of ryotwari patta since even ground rent patta and ryotwari patta are dealt with in the Act under the same Chapter and therefore, the right of the respondents must be recognised. LEARNED senior counsel referred to (1975) 1 S.C.C. 770 [Paspuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders], where the Supreme Court had held that when subsequent events which have a fundamental impact on the right to relief are brought to the notice of the Court/Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to the said events. LEARNED senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the subsequent events, viz., the enquiry report must be taken note of and therefore, the petition for receiving additional evidence must be allowed. He also relied on (2007) 4 S.C.C. 221 [A.V. Papayya Sastry vs. Govt. of A.P.], where the Supreme Court had held that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law and it can be challenged in any Court at any time in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.