ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICERPUDUKOTTAI Vs. K KARUNAGIRI MUTHIAH NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Karunagiri Muthiah Naicker, was the owner of the village of D'Edayapatti. After Madras Act 26 of 1948 came into force, the Assistant Settlement Officer took proceedings suo motu under S. 9 of the Act to determine whether D'Edayapatti was an Inam estate as defined by that Act. On 11-4-1950 he came to the conclusion that it was an inam estate. Subsequently on 7-8-1951, the Government notified the estate under S. 3 of the Act. Meanwhile the landholder appealed to the Estates Abolition Tribunal against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer. That appeal was dismissed on 12 9-1952, as barred by limitation. Against that order of dismissal the landholder preferred W. P. No. 55 of 1953 to this court and obtained a ruled setting aside the order of the tribunal dated 12-9-1952. The Tribunal therefore had to hear the appeal afresh. After further hearing, on 19-1-1954, the tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the proceedings to that officer for disposal afresh. When the proceedings were thus revived before the Assistant Settlement Officer, the landholder applied to him for stay of proceedings, because O. S. No. 101 of 1953 was pending in the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, where one of the main questions that arose for determination was whether D'Edayapatti was an estate at all as defined by the Estates Land Act and by Act 26 of 1948. On 28-6-1954, the Assistant Settlement Officer declined to grant that request, and he decided to proceed with the enquiry, that is, the enquiry under S. 9 of Act 26 of 1948. The landholder, Muthiah Naicker, thereupon preferred W. P. No. 490 of 1954 to this Court. That was disposed of on 10-1-1956. I pointed out in my order that, as the law stood then, while the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the village in question was an inam estate or not, the question whether D'Edayapatti was an estate at all as defined by the Estates Land Act and by Act 26 of 1948 could only be decided by the statutory authorities as collateral to the determination of the question, to decide which they had exclusive jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide whether D'Edayapatti was an estate at all remained unaffected. Since that question was before the civil court in O. S. No. 101 of 1953, I held that it would be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the Assistant Settlement Officer to stay the proceedings under S. 9 till the question was disposed of by the Civil Court in O. S. No. 101 of 1953. To that effect I directed the issue of a writ of Mandamus by my order dated 10-1-1956.

(2.) Subsequent to that, Madras Act 30 of 1956 was passed which amended among others some of the provisions of the Act 26 of 1948. Section 3 of Act 30 of 1956 specifically provided that the question, whether a given territorial area constituted an estate as defined by the Estates Land Act, should be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 10 of Act 30 of 1956 excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts to decide that question. Act 30 of 1956 was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 19-12-1956. It was brought into effect from 3-8-1957.

(3.) Thus, while the position on 10-1-1956, when W. P. No. 490 of 1954 was disposed of was that the civil court's jurisdiction to decide whether D'Edayapatti was an estate was intact, the position after Act 30 of 1956 came into force was that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide that question had been taken away, and the exclusive jurisdiction, was vested in the statutory tribunal. Under S. 11 of Act 30 of 1956 the proceedings pending before the Assistant Settlement Officer stood transferred to the statutory Tribunal. The composition of the Tribunal itself is now governed by Madras Act 34 of 1958.