Madras High Court
Somasundaram Chettiar vs Sengaichami on 18 August, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.T.A.No.2 of 2004
1.Somasundaram Chettiar
2.Palaniappa Chettiar
3.O.M.A.M.CP.Venkatachalam
4.Chockalingam
5.O.M.A.M.C.Kannan ...Appellants
-Vs.-
1.Sengaichami
2.Adimoolam
3.Gurunathan
4.Minor Mayandi
5.Muthirulayi
6.Minor Packiam
7.M.Ramiah
8.O.M.A.M.C.Alamelu Achi
9.Alagammai Achi
10.S.M.Soundaram Achi
11.Alamelu
12.Valli Achi
13.Sivagami Achi
14.Meenakshi Achi ...Respondents
(Minor R4 and R6 are represented by their father and guardian, second
respondent in R.A.)
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 46 of Tamil
Nadu Inam Estates Abolition Act, 1963 to set aside the order and
decreetal order dated 27.06.1997 of Estates Abolition Tribunal (Sub
Court), Sivagangai, in R.A.No.95 of 1973.
For Appellants :Mr.C.Mahadevan
For R1, R4 to R6 :Mr.AL.Vijeyadevaraj
For R7 :No Appearance
R2 and R3 :Died
R8 to R14 :Given up
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The present appeal relates to Inam estates in 122, Ladanendal
village. The estates were notified in G.O.No.1119, Revenue dated
30.03.1965 and taken over on 01.05.1965 by application of the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1963 (in short TN Act 26/63).
2. As no application had been received for issuance of Ryotwari
patta as provided for under G.O.No.403, Revenue dated 15.02.1965, the
Assistant Settlement Officer (in short ‘ASO’) took up suo motu enquiry in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respect of the lands as set out in the schedule to his order dated 25.03.1973,
being
S.No. Extent Classifi Name of person to Sanction
cation whom patta is Act 26/63
allowed
296-1 0.58 wet Somasundaram
322-4 1.40 wet Chettiar
291 4.52 wet S/o O.M.A.Lakshmanan (1)
295-4 1.19 wet Chettiar
361-3 2.08 wet
351-5 Meyyappa Chettiar,
-8 1.29 wet S/o.SP.Lakshmanan 9(1) of
266-1 0.42 wet Chettiar this act
266-3 0.64 wet
270-1 0.69 wet
269-5 0.86 wet Chidambaram Chettiar,
300 2.94 wet S/o.Muthukarruppan
283-9 1.22 wet Chettiar (3)
299-8 0.59 wet
342-1 6.10 wet Muthukaruppan Chettiar,
292-2 2.00 wet S/o.Palaniappa Chettiar
342-1 6.10 wet (4) 9(1) of
292-2 2.00 wet this act
354-3 1.10 wet 26/63
352-1 2.20 wet Palaniappa Chettiar,
354-3 1.10 wet S/o.Raanathan Chettiar
352-1 2.20 wet (5)
352-7 0.57 wet
343-4 3.16 wet
356-5 0.60 wet
285-1 1.83 wet
316-4 3.13 wet
342-3 3.25 wet
337-2 0.91 wet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
285-2 1.97 wet
338-5 - wet
264-5 0.30 wet Raju, S/o.Muniappan 11(1)
764-6 0.37 wet S.Periasami Ambalam, 11(1)
228-3 0.52 wet S/o.Shenbagaram Ambalam
228-5 2.88 wet H.Mohammed Hanifa, 11(1)
232-3 2.28 wet S/o.Haja Moideen Sahib
Sd/-G.A.I.Kanniah, 25-3-73
A.S.O.”
The properties above are hereinafter referred to as 'lands in question'.
3. Notices were published and claim statements filed by the
claimants and after a detailed verification of the rival claims ie., by the land
holders and cultivators, an order came to be passed on 25.03.1973 deciding
the same. As against that order, cross appeals came to be filed by the land
holders as well as the cultivators before the Estates Abolition Tribunal (Sub
Court), Sivagangai (in short ‘tribunal’ or ‘EAT’).
4. The brief facts are as follows. Laderandal Village comprises
three units, namely, Chellappa Nendal, Kanakka Nendranl and Villiyarendal
that had been notified. The present appellants contended that the original
grant was in favour of a family of Brahmins to continue in favour of their
descendants. The lands were to be classified as pannai lands and kudi lands.
5. As regards the latter category, some portions were sold under
registered sale deeds and thus, the purchasers became owners of those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kudiwarams continuing the cultivation thereon through hired labour. It is
under this category that the appellants claim title. Before the ASO, they
filed documents in support of their claim of purchase from the original
grantees pointing out that the vendors as per the sale documents were the
descendants of the original grantees.
6. While so, pannai grants had been conferred by the British on
08.06.1966 and orders had been passed by the Special Deputy Collector,
Devakottai on 30.09.1959, 22.10.1959, 24.10.1959 and 25.10.1959 under
Act 30 of 1947 as amended by Act XXIV of 1956 declaring the lands in
Laderandal village as private lands belonging to the appellants.
7. It was the case of the appellants that the execution of lease
deeds in favour of the cultivators would not confer any right on them, as
the documentation inter se was to the effect that the lands under cultivation
would be surrendered to the owners every fasli once the harvest was over.
8. Per contra, the cultivators had claimed ryotwari patta relying
on receipts issued for payments of melwaram to the appellants or kist to the
government. The appellants argued that such documents would not confer
ryoti interest. They contend that other documents that had been produced by
the cultivators in support of their stand had been found to be fabricated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 25.03.1973
had been in favour of the land owners except in regard to the lands in
S.Nos.264/2, 264/6, 228/3, 228/5 and 232/3 in respect of which patta had
been granted to the cultivators.
10. Cross appeals had been filed before the Tribunal in R.A.
76/73, 77/73 and 95/73 by the cultivators and 37/80 by the land owners that
came to be decided by order dated 06.01.1975 allowing the appeals of the
cultivators and granting ryotwari patta to them and rejecting the claim of
the land holders. As against that order, ST Appeals Nos.240 to 242 of
1975 were filed before this Court and were decided on 13.09.1978.
11. The parties state that a copy of this order is not available
with them. Our strenuous efforts to procure a copy of the same either
from the court records or online, are also to no avail. In fine, the order of
the tribunal has been set aside, this Court being of the view that the
tribunal had not examined each item of lands to determine its character
and whether they would fall within the scope of 3(10)(b)(iv) of the Tamil
Nadu Estates Lands Act or otherwise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The matters were remanded to its file for fresh disposal
according to law. The observations of the High Court as extracted in the
appeal memorandum read as follows:
“In the view of the admitted fact that there
were both pannai lands and ryoti lands in the village
in question and the land-holders claimed to have
purchased the ryoti lands also falling within the
scope of Section 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu
Estates Land Act, it became absolutely necessary for
the Tribunal to identify each item of land and
determine its character and even if it was held to be
originally ryoti lands, whether they fall within the
scope of section 3(10)(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu
Estates Lands Act or not. But the Tribunal has not
done any such thing. In view of this, we have no
alternative but to allow the appeals and set aside the
orders of the Tribunal and remand the entire three
revenue appeals, namely, R.A.No.76, 77 and 95/73
for fresh disposal according to law. There will be no
order as to costs.”
13. Post remand, the matter was pending before the tribunal till
the passing of order dated 27.06.1997, approximately 19 years. There
have been multiple changes in the array of the parties during that period,
some parties having passed away paving the way for legal heirs to pursue
the appeals. That apart, the Tribunal did not decide the matter finally
even after 19 years, remanding the same to the file of the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Settlement Officer, Sivagangai, for passing of orders.
14. It is as against the order of remand that the present Special
Tribunal appeals have been filed as early as in 2004, taken up for
disposal by us in 2023. It has taken half a century, from 1973 to 2023, for
the litigation to reach this point and even now, we do not have the
satisfaction of stating that the litigation has been resolved and concluded
finally.
15. Before this Court, the matter was filed on 03.11.1997 and
service was complete in 2001. There are no docket sheet entries to show
that the matter was ever listed thereafter and it was listed before us only
on 11.07.2023 when we directed parties to take steps as, in the interim,
there was yet another change in the array of parties.
16. In the course of our research, we have come across a
decision by Justice Ismail in A.N.N.K.Mohamed Kasim and Others vs.
Alagan and Others (1979 (2) MLJ 269). In that case as well, this Court
was concerned with rival claims for patta that were to be decided in
terms of TN Act 26/63. An order of the tribunal was in challenge and the
Court was of the view in that matter as well that the issue had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
oversimplified by the tribunal and there had been no proper verification
as to whether the land was private land or ryoti land, which was
necessary to decide a claim for ryotwari patta.
17. The appeal was allowed and the order of the tribunal was
set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal
with a direction for verification. In that case, liberty was granted to the
tribunal to remand the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer, if the
tribunal was not in a position to decide the matter itself. A caveat was
issued stating that the tribunal would dispose the matter expeditiously
seeing as it was an old matter. The relevant portion of the order is as
follows:-
“5. Under these circumstances, we have no
alternative but to allow the appeal and set aside the
order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal shall find out
whether all the lands in the estate are private lands or
ryoti lands and if some of them are private lands or
ryoti lands and if some of them are private lands and
some of them arc ryoti lands, the Tribunal shall
further find out with reference to which private lands
the appellants will be entitled to patta, if they satisfy
the requirements of Section 9 and in respect of which
of the ryoti lands, each of the respondents will be
entitled to ryotwari patta. If by any chance, the
Tribunal is not in a position to decide the matter itself,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it is certainly open to it to remand the matter to the
Assistant Settlement Officer. Having regard to the fact
that the matter is an old one, the Tribunal is directed
to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is ordered accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs.”
18. In the present case, the observations of the Court extracted
in paragraph 10 do not grant such liberty to the tribunal, but the tribunal
has proceeded to assume such liberty though after two decades of the
matter pending before it. If the tribunal was of the view that it was only
the Assistant Settlement Officer who would have the necessary
machinery to undertake the verification/analysis of the land as directed
by this Court, the order of remand could well have been passed without
keeping the matter pending for nearly two decades.
19. Since proper resolution of the matter would involve
detailed marshalling of facts and analysis to determine the character of
the lands in question, we are constrained to reiterate the directions in
order dated 13.09.1978 extracted at paragraph 10 above.
20. S.T.A.(MD)No.2 of 2004 is allowed by way of remand.
The order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal dated 27.06.1997 is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the file of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
21. A copy of this order will be issued to all the parties arrayed
in the cause title to the addresses mentioned therein, apart from being
issued to the Counsel as per the usual procedure. Parties will appear
before the Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, on 07.09.2023 at
10.30 am along with all evidence in their possession to pursue R.A.76/73,
77/73, 95/73 and 37/80. Orders will be passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Sivagangai within three months from 07.09.2023, ie., on or before
30.11.2023.
22. Copy of this order accompanied by original records be
despatched to the Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Sivagangai forthwith. No
costs.
23. List on 01.12.2023 to report compliance.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 18.08.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
cmr/sm
Note: Issue Order copy on 01.09.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Subordinate Court/Estate Abolition Tribunal,
Sivagangai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Copy To:
All parties in cause title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr/sm
Judgment made in
S.T.A.No.2 of 2004
Dated:
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
