The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

Madras High Court

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 18.07.2018

Reserved on : 29.06.2018
Pronounced on : 18.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

S.T.A.No.1 of 1999
and
S.T.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011

The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by the Collector of Pudukkottai
.. Objector/Appellant/Appellant

Vs.

1.Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias

Vaidyanatha Iyer

2.R.Natarajan
3.S.Kesava Rao
4.K.Kumarasamy Reddiyar
5.R.Krishnamoorthy
6.R.Arunachalam
7.C.Sankaranarayanan
8.O.Rengasamy

(R2 to R8 impleaded as party respondents

vide Court order dated 06.01.2011 made
STP No.4 of 2010)

9.RIBO Industries Pvt. Ltd,

through its Managing Director
R.Senthilnathan
S/o Ramanathan

10.Nachammal Educational Trust,

through its Trustee,
R.Senthilnathan,
S/o Ramanathan

(R9 and R10 are impleaded vide Court order

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 1

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

dated 08.08.2017 made in CMP(MD)No.3560/17)

11.Arunothayan
(R11 is impleaded vide Court order
dated 29.06.2018 made in MP(MD)No.1 /14)

..Respondents

Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) 37(1) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the fair and executable
orders in I.T.C.M.A.No.4 of 1982 dated 16.07.1983 on the file of the Court of
Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub-Court) Pudukkottai, confirming the order on
R.P.No.319/A/72 dated 1.5.1972 on the file of the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Pudukkottai.

!For Appellant : Mr.K.Chellapandian

Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar
Addl. Govt. Pleader

^For Respondents : Mr.Somayaji

Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Hidayathullakhan
(for R2 to R8)

Mr.M.Vallinayagam
Senior Counsel for
Mr.D.Nallathambi (for R9 & R10)

Mr.A.Arumugam for
Mr.G.Marimuthu (for R11)

:JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.] This appeal is filed under
Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 1963
(herein after called as ''the Act'') against the order, dated 16.07.1983, passed by the Inam Abolition
Tribunal (Sub-Court), Pudukkottai, confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Pudukkottai, dated 01.05.1972.

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer through his proceedings in RP No.319A/72, dated 01.05.1972,
directed for grant of ryotwari patta in the name of the Time-Being Trustee of Nallur Chatram for all
the lands mentioned in the schedule of the order, except the land in S.No.118/7 of Lakshmanapatti
village, under Section 11(2)(b) read with Section 8(5) of the Act 30/63, subject to the condition laid
down in Section 21 of the Act. Against the said order, after nearly 20 years, an appeal was preferred
by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Pudukkottai before the Inam Abolition
Tribunal, Pudukkottai. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 10.07.1983, confirmed the order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the present appeal is
filed before this Court.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 2

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

3.Perusal of the records pertains to the present appeal would show that this appeal itself was filed on
14.07.1997 i.e., nearly after a period of 14 years from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal.
Probably, after condoning the delay, this appeal might have been numbered by the Registry.

4.The case of the appellant is as follows:-

The subject matter lands are minor inams. An extent of 208.60 acres were registered as inam in
Nallurchatram village and the inamdar was given all the privileges attached to Brahmadayam inams
as notified by the Durbar in the Notification of the year 1903. The original inamdar Appavu Ayyar
had been the owner of Sarvamanyam lands in several villages and he surrendered the inam lands to
the Durbar and got the lands in question in exchange by means of Sannads. His family later
instituted Charity of Nallur. There is no direct grant to the charity. The ex-durbar settled this inam
jointly in the name of trustee and two of the living heirs of the original inamdar in case No.103. After
the advent of Act 30/63, inam lands were vested with the State on and from 02.02.1966. The
Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, therefore, took suo motu action and after an enquiry,
directed to issue ryotwari patta for an extent of about 1,501.60 acres in favour of the trustee, Nallur
Chatram. Some of the lands have been let on waram on payment of rent in cash. The tenants have
been selling and mortgaging lands among themselves and they were not disturbed at any point of
time. In the year 1983, suits were filed against the tenants for the recovery of loans. In 1946, lands
were surveyed and registered in the names of the respective tenants. Therefore, neither the inamdar
nor ex-durbar ever interfered with the right of the tenants and the inamdars never exercised
exclusive Kudivaram rights. The Assistant Settlement Officer erred in treating the lands as service
tenure lands within the scope of Section 8(5) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer failed to
note that the lands were at its inception purchased by Appavu Ayyar. The persons, who are in actual
possession and enjoyment of the land, were not enquired into and no notice was issued to them.
Likewise, no notice was issued to the Tahsildar either. Publication of general notice is not sufficient,
especially when specific objections have been raised before the Assistant Settlement Officer by the
tenants. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is vitiated for non- conformity with the
principles of natural justice.

5.The case of the contesting respondents is as follows:- The subject matter lands are minor inam
lands. The same was granted by the Pudukkottai Durbar in the name of one Brahadambal Ammal
for carrying on Charity namely, feeding wayfarers at a Chatram at Nallur. After the demise of the
said Brahadambal, her adopted son by name, Muthukrishna Iyer was conducting Charity and
thereafter, his son Chidambara Iyer followed the same. However, after some time, the said
Chidambara Iyer was not performing the Charity properly. Therefore, a scheme suit was filed before
the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai in O.S.No.76 of 1951. A scheme decree was passed on 13.09.1957,
wherein and whereby, the Tahsildar, Kulathur, was appointed as a sole trustee of the said trust for
one year. I.A.No.147 of 1966 was filed for appointment of trustee. The said I.A was ordered on
30.01.1970 thereby appointing K.S.Vaidyanatha Sastri and Ramasamy Iyer, a Senior Advocate as
trustees. However, the said Ramasamy Iyer got relieved from the post of trustee leaving the said
Vaidyanatha Sastri alone as the sole trustee. The said Vaidyanatha Sastri was administering the
Nallur Chatram Trust. After introduction of the Inam Act 30 of 1963, the inam lands vested with the
State with effect from 02.02.1966. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act deal with the eligibility for grant of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 3

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

ryotwari patta. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai, initiated suo motu
enquiry and found that Chidambaram Iyer was the direct descendant by Brahadambal Ammal to
whom the title deed was granted; Charity was being performed by the trustee Vaidyanatha Sastri,
who was entitled to get ryotwari patta; lands were service tenure lands within the scope of Section
8(5). Accordingly, he granted ryotwari patta on 01.05.1972 except the lands at S.No.118/7. The
appeal filed against the said order before the Tribunal was dismissed also by holding that the appeal
was barred by time. The present appeal filed before this Court also was after a lapse of 16 years. The
said Vaidyanatha Sastri died on 21.08.2004. In I.A.No.243 of 2006, one K.V.Ramachandran and his
son were appointed as trustees, by Sub-Court, Pudukkottai. On 02.08.2007, the said
K.V.Ramachandran passed away leaving behind his son by name, R.Natarajan and his wife as legal
heirs. In I.A.No.199 of 2008, the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai appointed the said R.Natarajan, the
respondent herein as one of the trustees along with Kesava Rao, the 3rd respondent herein on
30.07.2008 and thus, the said Kesava Rao was continuing as Managing Trustee and the 2nd
respondent herein as trustee. Thereafter, by another order made in I.A.No.313 of 2009 in O.S.No.76
of 1951 dated 18.08.2009, the respondents 4 to 8 herein were also appointed as trustees along with
respondents.

6.Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant
submitted as follows:-

After the introduction of the Inam Act 30 of 1963, which came into force on 05.02.1964, all inam
lands stood transferred to the Government. The transfer is automatic and therefore, no notice is
required. The Assistant Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta to trustees of the Nallur Chatram
except one land by suo motu proceedings, which is erroneous. The trustees of Nallur Chatram are
not entitled to get ryotwari patta, because they are not cultivating the lands and consequently, they
are not having Kudiwaram rights. Therefore, grant of ryotwari patta in their favour was not in
consonance with Section 8. The trustees were not doing any charity. Only the person, who is
cultivating the land, alone is entitled to get ryotwari patta. The Assistant Settlement Officer has not
enquired into the claim. In this case, there is no claim by any person and therefore, he ought not to
have issued ryotwari patta in favour of the Nallur Chatram Trustee, that too, by invoking suo motu
proceedings.

7.Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 8 submitted as

follows:-

The claim of the appellant before all the authorities below as well as before this Court is totally
unsustainable and against the scheme decree passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.76 of
1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai. The present claim was made under Section 8 of the
said Act and therefore, only in the absence of any claim under Section 8, application of Section 9
would arise. The Assistant Settlement Officer, in pursuant to the initiation of suo motu proceedings,
issued notice to the parties, and made paper publication. The Collector was also a party to the
proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer's order was challenged before the Tribunal after 10
years. The Tribunal found that the said appeal was barred by time, as contemplated under Section
11(3). No fraud or mistake of fact was pleaded by the Government at any point of time to get over the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 4

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

period of limitation. The Assistant Settlement Officer is having power under Rule 9(3) of the Rules
made under the said Act to initiate suo moto proceedings, if no claim is made. Therefore, concurrent
views expressed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Special Tribunal below need not be
interfered with, after long such a period of time.

8.Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 9 and 10 submitted as
follows:-

The chatram became the owner of the property after settlement proceedings. The respondents 9 and
10 would succeed automatically if the respondents 2 to 8 succeed.

9.Mr.A.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the 11th respondent submitted as follows:-

11th respondent is a cultivating tenant in respect of the portion of the subject matter of land and is
sailing with the case of the appellant. Under Section 8(5) of the Act, priority should be given to
persons in possession of the property. Only when the persons under categories 1 and 2 contemplated
under Section 8(2) are absent, consideration of persons under the third category would arise. The
trust is not in occupation of the property and they are not doing the service. No records were
produced. As per Section 11(2) of the Act, an occupant of the land is entitled to notice. No such
notice was served. The trust can seek patta only when they do some service. On the other hand,
cultivating tenants are entitled to get patta.

10.Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 to 8, by way of reply, submitted
as follows:-

Under suo motu power contemplated under Rule 9, no notice is required to be issued on the
occupant. The trust is functioning by a scheme decree framed by the Court and therefore, the
appellant and the 11th respondent are not entitled to raise all these contentions before this Court. If
they have any grievance as if the trust is not doing any service, they should only move the Civil
Court, which framed the scheme.

11.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before us.

12.The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order passed by the Special
Tribunal under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari Act), 1963, calls for any interference by this Court by exercising the power conferred under
Section 30 of the Act.

13.The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari
Act), 1963. The subject matter lands were minor inam lands. In pursuant to an enactment of the Act
and by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with vesting of minor inam in Government, these
lands were vested with the Government on and from the appointed date. Thus, all the rights and
interest created by the inamdars in or over inam before appointed day cease to exist thereafter.
However, Section 8 of the Act since contemplates grant of ryotwari patta, the Assistant Settlement

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 5

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

Officer granted such patta under Section 8(5) of the Act, in favour of the first respondent herein, by
his proceedings dated 01.05.1972. Under the above said provision of law, an individual, who held the
minor inam before the appointed day, on condition of rendering service to the religious, educational
or charitable institution, is entitled to get the ryotwari patta, however subject to the provisions of
Section 21.

Section 8(5) reads as follows:-

?8.Grant of ryotwari pattas-

(5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on
condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of
ryotwari patta under sub- section (1) or shall be subject to the provisions of Section 21.?

14. Section 21 deals with service inam, wherein it is contemplated that the service holder, shall
subject to the provisions of sub-section 3 therein, be bound to continue to render the service after
the appointed day. It is also contemplated under sub-clause 6 of Section 21 that if the service holder
failed to render the service, the prescribed officer shall notify such failure in such manner as may be
prescribed and then declare that the service holder's right to occupy the land shall be seized and
determined and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangements as it feels fit for
performance of the service and shall be entitled to hold the land as its absolute property, however, to
the payment of the assessment fixed under Section 16 or under Section 16(A), as the case may be.
Explanation I to section 21 further contemplates that service holders includes his heirs. For proper
appreciation, the relevant clauses under Section 21 are extracted herein:-

?21.Service inams ? (1) The provisions of this Section shall apply in respect of any minor inam which
was held immediately before the appointed day by an individual (hereinafter referred to in this
section as the service- holder) on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or
charitable institution.

(2) The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be bound to continue to
render the service after the appointed day.

(3) (i) Where a service-holder is entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 8 in respect of any land,
he shall have the option-

(a) either to pay to the religious institution the amount specified in sub-section (4) and on such
payment the land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), be discharged from
the condition of the service; or

(b) to hold the land and continue to render service subject to the provisions contained in sub-section
(1), (2), (6) and (7),

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 6

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

(ii) The option referred to in clause (i) shall be exercised within such time from the appointed day,
and in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4) The amount referred to in sub-section (3) shall be twenty times the difference between the fair
rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule
and the land revenue due on such land.

(5) Where the service-holder has exercised his option to pay the amount specified in sub-section, (4)
the tasdik allowance referred to in sub-section (6) in respect of the period subsequent to the date of
the exercise of such option shall be the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall
be at liberty to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

(6) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, the institution shall pay to the
service-holder the tasdik allowance paid by the Government under Section 20.

(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and
after such notice to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in such
manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the tasdik allowance payable to the
institution in respect of the period subsequent to the failure shall be the absolute property of the
Institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the
performance of the service.

(7) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, he shall be entitled to occupy
permanently the lands in respect of which he is entitle to patta under Section 9, subject, however, to
the payment of the assessment fixed under Section 16 or under section 16-A, as the case may be in
respect of such lands.

(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and
after such notice to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in such
manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the service- holder's right to occupy
permanently the land under clause (a) shall cease and determine, and the institution shall be at
liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service and shall be
entitled to hold the land as its absolute property subject, however, to the payment of the assessment
fixed therefor under section 16 or under section 16-A as the case may be.

Explanation I ? For the purpose of this section, -

(i) service-holder includes his heirs;

(ii) non-performance of the service due to illness or other temporary disability shall not be deemed
to be failure to render service, provided that the service-holder makes alternative arrangements for
rendering the service during the period of such illness or of other temporary disability.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 7

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

Explanation II- For the purposes of sub-section (4) ?land revenue? means the ryotwari assessment
including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess.?

15.The purpose of enacting the Act 30 of 1963 was considered and discussed by the Division Bench
of this Court in case reported in 1987-100- L.W.721 (Alagappa Gounder vs. Sivamalai Gounder)
wherein at paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been observed as follows:-

8.But the Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (Act 30 of 1963) stands on a
different footing. Inams were granted by Sovereigns for religious and charitable purposes. In some
cases, the Inam Comprised of right to collect the assessment in a particular village, and the same is
termed as an Inam estate. In some cases it comprised of land free of assessment which is called
Iruvaram Inam lands. Inam which comprised of Iruvaram lands, which do not fall in the category of
Inam estates, are called Minor Inams. Such minor Inams were alienated indiscriminately by the
Inamdars and the purpose of the grant was not achieved. There were difficulties in resuming the
inam by the Government on account of long possession by the alienes and the rights flowing from
such long possession. Hence, the Legislature thought fit to recognize the possessory right acquired
and to impose a ryotwari assessment on such lands, Act 30 of 1963 was enacted not with a view to
take over the entire interest but only for the purpose of abolishing the Inam tenure and convert the
same into Ryotwari tenure. The result is the assessment is levied on the lands and the right vested in
the person in possession is recognised. The rights of a ryot who is in enjoyment of a minor inam
land, who is lawfully entitled to the Kudiwaram right and who satisfies the conditions laid down
under the Act, are recognised and a ryotwari patta is given to him under the provisions of Act 30 of
1963. Thus the rights are not extinguished as in the case of estates, but on the other hand the right in
the minor Inam lands is confirmed and recognised by the issue of ryotwari patta. The vesting
contemplates under Act 30 of 1963 is a notional vesting to enable the Government to effect a
settlement and levy assessment. The rights of the persons in possession conforming to the
conditions laid down in the said Act are not affected by the provisions of Act 30 of 1963. The proviso
to S.3 of Act 30 of 1963 lays down that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land
in a minor inam in respect of which the person in possession is entitled to ryotwari patta pending
decision of the appropriate authority under the Act, whether the person is entitled to ryotwari patta.

9.It is will be inequitable to apply the principles mentioned by the Supreme Court in a case relating
to an estate, to a minor inam. In so far as minor inams are concerned, the vesting is notional and
does not affect the Kudiwaram right lawfully enjoyed or acquired as laid down in Act 30 of 1963. The
vesting contemplated under Act 30 of 1963 is only to enable the Government to effect a ryotwari
settlement and not extinguish the existing rights in an inam land.?

16.A Full Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1998-2 L.W. 189 (Srinivasan and 6 others vs.
Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai) has observed at paragraph 14 as follows:-

?14..................A comparison of the provisions contained in the Abolition Act, the Inam Abolition Act
as also the Minor Inams Act, would go to show that the ultimate object of one or the other of these
legislations is the introduction of ryotwari settlement in the areas covered and notified under the
respective enactments, after abolishing existing land tenure and acquiring the rights of the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 8

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

landholders or inamdars concerned, who, under the system of land tenure which was in vogue in
those areas, were considered to be intermediaries in between the actual tiller of the soil and the
State and that the other provisions pertaining to the constitution of authorities, their power,
jurisdiction and the finality given to the orders passed, or incorporation of a provision in the nature
of res judicate providing for the binding nature of the orders on the parties to the same and persons
claiming under them in any suit or proceedings in a civil court in so far as such matters are in issue
between the parties or persons in such suit or proceedings, are almost identical and similar, except
certain differences which, in our view, may not be that much relevant for the issue before us. Even
while dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1986
SC 794 = 98 L.W. 849 (supra) observed that the powers of the statutory constituted under the Act
are exercised in a summary manner and the claims of occupants comes to be determined only
incidentally and they cannot be equated with the civil courts in respect of what they could do or the
nature of relief that they could grant. A careful analysis of the scheme underlying these Abolition
laws would go to show that the vesting on abolition under everyone of these legislation is subject to
the pre-existing rights of the occupants, except in respect of what are known as public or communal
properties, meant for common use and the grant of patta has been always considered and held to be
in recognition of their pre- existing rights. The provisions relating to abolition and vesting, of the
properties do not have the effect of obliterating or destroying such pre- existing rights, if any, except
in respect of public or communal properties and the rights which inhere are the basic and
fundamental rights which entitle a person to preferentially get patta under these legislations, and
the same could not be equated to the grant of patta by way of assignment under the Revenue
Standing Orders or under rules of assignment outside the scope of the statutory enactments.
Similarly, a meticulous analysis of the scheme underlying the provisions of the Act, dealing with the
nature of rights dealt with by the various authorities, the manner in which such authorities
adjudicate such rights and the consequences of such adjudication, disclose that they do not mean
and even intend to be a substitute or alternate mode of resolution of the ordinary civil right of a
citizen or for that matter persons asserting competing claims, in their attempt to project a claim for
patta...................?

17.Thus, the above rulings will make it clear that enactment of the Act will not take away the
pre-existing right if any, except in respect of public or communal property and such previous
existing right entitles a person to get patta preferentially under such enactment. Therefore, it is
evident that grant of such patta under the said special enactment cannot be equated with the grant
of patta by way of an assignment by the Revenue Department under the revenue standing orders.
Therefore, the pre-existing right play a major role for considering and granting the patta under this
special enactment.

18.Let us now consider the factual aspects of the matter. It is not in dispute that the subject matter
lands are minor inam lands. It is also not in dispute that in pursuant to the introduction of Act 30 of
1963 and notification issued under the said Act under the relevant provisions, the subject matter
lands got vested with the Government as contemplated under Section 3 of the said Act. After vesting
of such lands and for the purpose of issuing ryotwari patta, as contemplated under Section 8 of the
said Act, the Assistant Settlement Officer commenced suo motu enquiry into the nature and history
of the lands for the purpose of deciding as to who is entitled to get patta in respect of the subject

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 9

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

matter lands. The Assistant Settlement Officer took such proceedings suo motu, since no claim was
made by any persons and no application in Form 4 was received by him for grant of ryotwari patta
either under Section 8 or under Section 9 of the said Act. At this juncture, it is relevant note that
Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 1963, which
deals with enquiry into claim for ryotwari patta under Section 8 or 9, empowers the Assistant
Settlement Officer to enquire into the nature and history of the land suo motu for the purpose of
determining as to whether any person is entitled prima facie to a ryotwari patta in respect of that
land.

19.Based on such suo motu enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer issued notice to the persons
whom he prima facie considered eligible for grant of patta on the basis of the village and settlement
record. Apart from issuing such notice in Form 5 to those persons, the Assistant Settlement Officer
also published a notice in Form 6 inviting objection if any from the interested persons. The
Settlement Officer recorded in his proceedings that those notices were served and published in the
prescribed manner.

20.Thus, the Assistant Settlement Officer considered the eligibility for grant of ryotwari patta in
respect of the land except a land in S.No.118/7 at Lakshmanapattai village, with which we are not
concerned in the present appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the subject matter
lands covered by DD No.9248 was originally granted by Pudukkottai Durbar in the name of one
Brahadambal ammal for conducting a Charity namely, feeding wayfarers at a Chatram at Nallur
from out of the income of the land. He further found that after the death of the said Brahadambal
ammal, her adopted son Muthukrishna Iyer was conducting the Charity and later his son
Chidambaram Iyer did not properly perform the Charity which had resulted in filing of the scheme
suit on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai in O.S.No.76 of 1951 to frame a scheme for
performance of the Charity. It is further found by the Assistant Settlement Officer that scheme
decree was framed on 13.09.1957 in the said suit for the management of the Charity by appointing
the Tahsildar, Kulathur, as the sole trustee. However, the Tahsildar, Kulathur, did not continue as
the sole trustee and on the other hand, by way of an Interlocutory Order made in I.A.No.147 of 1966
dated 30.01.1970, the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, appointed one K.S.Vaidyanatha Sastri who was the
claimant before the Assistant Settlement Officer and another by name, Ramasamy Iyer, Senior
Advocate as the trustees of the said Charity. However, the said Ramasamy Iyer got relieved from the
post of trustee thereby leaving the said K.S.Vaidyanatha Sastri alone as the sole trustee of the Nallur
Chatram. The said Vaidyanatha Sastri was examined as P.W.1 before the Assistant Settlement
Officer, who deposed that except in respect of the land in S.No.118/7, as the immediate agnate of the
last trusee Chidambaram Iyer, he is entitled to ryotwari patta for subject matter lands. The Assistant
Settlement Officer also pointed out that Chidambaram Iyer S/o Muthukrishna Iyer though an
interested party, has not appeared for enquiry in spite of pre notices were duly served and published
in the prescribed manner. The Assistant Settlement Officer also found that the Chidambaram Iyer
was the direct descendant of Brahadambal ammal, who was cited as first defendant in the scheme
suit. It is also noted by the Assistant Settlement Officer that the said Chidambaram Iyer remained
ex-parte and consequently the Sub-Court appointed the Tahsildar, Kulathur, as trustee. It is a
matter of fact that thereafter the Sub-Court appointed the claimant K.S.Vaidyanatha Sastri and
another as trustees, out of whom, the claimant alone continued as the sole trustee. Though the said

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 10

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

Vaidyanatha Sastri sought for grant of ryotwari patta in his name as a member connected with the
family of the Brahadambal Ammal, the Assistant Settlement Officer found that his claim for
exclusive ownership is not tenable, more particularly, when the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, appointed
him only as a trustee to look after the trust lands and to perform the Charity and that the claimant is
not the direct descendant of the said Brahadambal Ammal. The Assistant Settlement Officer further
pointed out that the lands were endowed for the performance of charity and therefore, they are not
alienable. Consequently, as he found that the Vaidyanatha Sastri was holding those subject matter
lands only in his capacity of trustee appointed by the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai and that the evidence
of P.W.1 and C.W disclosed that the Charity was being performed by the then trustee namely,
Vaidyanatha Sastri, the Assistant Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the said Time-being
trustee, who was performing the Charity, was entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 8(5) of the
Act. Accordingly, he directed the ryotwari patta be granted in the name of the said Time-being
trustee of Nallur Chatram for the subject matter lands.

21.The above factual findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer were put to challenge before the
Special Tribunal which in turn confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Tribunal
pointed out that the Assistant Settlement Officer has conducted enquiry as per the provisions of the
Act and that the Government did not produce any document to show that the original inamdar,
namely, Appavu Iyer was in possession of the land and that there was no grant to the Charity. The
Tribunal also observed that the Board of Revenue has found in its order in D.P.Ms.No.12/1 dated
03.07.1965 that the Pudukkottai Durbar has originally granted the lands in the name of one
Brahadambal Ammal for conducting the Charity. The Tribunal also pointed out that though the
appellant stated that the tenants were paying rent to the inamdar and that they were selling and
mortgaging the lands, no document was filed to show about the rights of the tenants.

22.Challenging the above findings rendered by the Special Tribunal confirming the order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

23.The main contention of the appellant is that the trustees are not cultivating the subject matter
lands and therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta. It is also the contention of
the appellant that the trustees are not doing the Charity and therefore, granting patta under Section
8(5) is not justifiable. The same contention is raised by the impleaded 11th respondent, claiming to
be a tenant.

24.First of all, we would like to point out that consideration of the present appeal and the grounds
raised herein cannot be made solely based on the present state of affairs, as alleged by the appellant,
even assuming it to be true. On the other hand, we need to turn ourselves and look back the period
of 46 years from now, to consider the facts and circumstances as existed at that point of time, when
the Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order, dated 01.05.1972 and granted patta.

25.Perusal of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, which we discussed elaborately supra,
would show that all the contentions raised before us were not raised before the Assistant Settlement
Officer at the time of enquiry. It is contended as if the Tashildar was not issued with a notice by the
Assistant Settlement Officer. However, the findings rendered by the Assistant Settlement Officer

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 11

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

that notice in Form No.5 and notice in Form 6 were issued in the prescribed manner and the
findings rendered by the Tribunal at paragraph 13 that notice in Form No.5 was issued to the
persons prima facie considered for eligible for patta; that notice in Form 6 was also published
inviting objection; that all these notices were issued in the public place such as Taluk Office, Village
savadi and other public places; that the abolition of inam and taking over the land by Government
was published in the Gazatte; that the Tahsildar and District Collector were supplied with the
Gazattee; that the Tahsildar was the trustee of the suit land from the date of taking over the lands by
the Government; that the Assistant Settlement Officer had perused the title deed No.9248 which
was available in the Taluk Office; that the Karnam of the suit village was examined as C.W.1 who
represented on behalf of the Tashildar in the enquiry, would indicate that the Tashildar had notice
in the enquiry and therefore, the present contentions raised by the appellant for want of notice on
the Tahsildar cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, when it is claimed that such notices were also
pasted in the notice board of Taluk Office, it is very difficult to comprehend that the Tahsildar was
not aware of the proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Nothing prevented him from
raising objection in writing against grant of patta in favour of the Trustee of Nallur Chatram. When
a public notice is issued, the legal presumption is that every public is aware of such notice including
the concerned officials. Neither the 11th respondent herein nor any other persons seems to have
made any claim or objection before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Though it is sought to be
contended that some persons made claim, no materials is placed before us in support of such
contention.

26.It is further contended by the appellant that the claimant is not doing the cultivation and
therefore, not entitled to patta. We have already pointed out that such objection could be considered
taking note of the event that had taken place at the relevant point of time at which such claim was
made and patta was granted and not by taking note of the present state of affairs, as projected by the
appellant. The Assistant Settlement Officer has granted the patta under Section 8(5) of the Act, since
the claimant was the trustee of a charitable institution namely, Nallurchatram. Therefore, in our
considered view, the personal cultivation requirement as contemplated under the sub-section 1 of
Section 8 does not arise since the sub-section 2 of Section 8 deals with Iruvaram minor inam lands
granted for the support or maintenance of religious institution or performance of the charity or
service connected therewith of any other religious charity. No doubt, under Section 8(5), such grant
of ryotwari patta was subject to the provisions of Section 21 where service inam are considered. In
order to get a ryotwari patta by a service holder under Section 8(5), such person should continue to
render the service after the appointed day. In this case, the Assistant Settlement Officer has found
that the said service was being performed by the said trustee Vaidynatha Sastri, based on the
evidence of P.W.1 and C.W. When such being the factual findings rendered by the said authority as
early as in the year 1972, the appellant herein is not entitled to raise an objection as if the said
trustee was not doing the service continuously and consequently the patta ought not to have been
granted. No material is placed either before the Assistant Settlement Officer or before the Tribunal
proving the contra.

27. At the same time, it is to be noted that the Assistant Settlement Officer has granted ryotwari
patta in the name of the Time-being Trustee of Nallurchatram under Section 8(5) subject to the
condition laid down in Section 21 of the said Act. Therefore, if the conditions laid down in the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 12

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

section 21 are not being complied with, it is always open to the concerned authorities under the
above said Act 30 of 1963 to take action and proceed in accordance with the procedure
contemplated under Section 21, in case, if the service holder fails to render the service. Even
otherwise, admittedly, the said Vaidyanatha Sastri was appointed as a trustee by virtue of an order
passed by the Civil Court in the scheme decree made in O.S.No.76 of 1951. Therefore, if any person
is aggrieved against the functioning and performance of such Trustee or anybody claiming under
such person, he is entitled to move the Court where the scheme decree was framed and seek for
appropriate modification of the same. Without doing so, filing of the present appeal cannot be
considered as a proper course of action.

28.The learned counsel Mr.A.Arumugam, appearing for 11th respondent contended that the tenants
who are doing the personal cultivation, should have been considered first for grant of ryotwari patta
under Section 8(1) of the Act before ever considering the claim of the claimant under Section 8(5).
In other words, his contention is that Section 8(1) excludes considering the other claim under
sub-clause 2 and sub-clause 5. A careful perusal of the relevant Section 8 does not indicate that
grant of such ryotwari patta should be made in preference of clause of persons referred to under
sub-clause 1, sub-clause 2 and sub-clause 5. Nowhere it indicates that Section 8(1) excludes the
claim under Section 8(2) and 8(5). On the other hand, perusal of Section 8 sub-section 1 would show
that consideration of a claim under sub-section 1 is subject to the provision of sub-section 2.

29.Likewise, perusal of the sub-section 5 of Section 8 also would indicate that it is not as though the
claim under the said provision shall be considered in the absence of any claim under Section 8(1) or
(2). In other words, it is seen that every claim under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) are independent
claim and one does not exclude other. Therefore, when the Assistant Settlement Officer, after
issuing public notice had come to the conclusion that the first respondent herein being the service
holder was entitled to patta, the 11th respondent herein, who was nowhere in the picture all along, is
not entitled to canvass the correctness and otherwise of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer as well the Tribunal below.

30.Further, it is to be noted that the action of the appellant in pursuing matter is liable to be
rejected, even on the sole ground of delay and laches. The Assistant Settlement Officer passed an
order on 01.05.1972. However, without filing an appeal within one year from the date of date of the
decision, as provided under Section 11(3), the very appeal before the Tribunal itself was filed after
nearly 11 years. The said aspect was considered by the Tribunal and found that the appeal was also
barred by time. It is true that the appeal was not dismissed only on the ground of limitation, but also
by considering the merits of the matter. Though such an order was passed by the Tribunal on
16.07.1983, the present appeal was filed before this Court only on 13.03.1987 i.e., nearly after four
years and got it numbered only in the year 1999, i.e, after 12 years from the date of filing. This
conduct of the appellant would show that they are not so serious about the matter and thus this
appeal is filed for the sake of filing an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in order to
give quietus to the legal battle.

31.Even though we are convinced to dismiss the present appeal based on the above stated reasons
and circumstances, we make it very clear that such dismissal will not prevent the appellant herein or

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 13

 The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Vaidyanatha Sastri Alias on 18 July, 2018

any other aggrieved person to initiate proceedings against the holders of the ryotwari patta, the
subject-matter herein, based on the present state of facts and circumstances, if such facts and
circumstances give scope for interference with the patta already granted. It is an admitted fact that
thought the claimant namely, the said Vaidyanatha Sastri claimed patta in his individual name, the
Assistant Settlement Officer found that the same is not permissible, in view of the fact that the said
claimant was functioning as a trustee to look after the trust land in pursuant to the scheme decree
passed by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. The Assistant Settlement Officer has also pointed out that the
lands are not alienable. Therefore, considering all these aspects and also the fact that the vast extent
of lands are the subject matter of ryotwari patta granted in favour of the trustee of the said
Nallurchatram, it is better for the Government to work out their remedies in accordance with law,
more particularly, either as provided under Section 21 of the said Act, if service is not being
continued or by approaching the civil Court which framed the scheme decree and seek for
appropriate orders by placing all the material facts and circumstances. Needless to say that if any
such approach is made, the Civil Court will consider the and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. We are not
inclined to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Tribunal below only
on the reason that the case as projected by the appellant now could not be fit in as though the case as
existed at the time of issuing patta, in the absence of convincing materials in support of such claim.

32.Considering all these aspects, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal which in turn confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Accordingly, the
appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the aggrieved parties either to
move under Section 21 of the Act 30 of 1963 or before the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, seeking for
appropriate relief in the said scheme suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are also dismissed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/15181615/ 14