Nagappa vs State of Madras

Venkatadri, J.—The Plaintiff is the Appellant. He filed the suit for a declaration of his rights to the suit lands and also for the issue of a

permanent injunction against the Defendant, the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Salem, and its subordinates restraining them from

interfering with his possession of the suit lands and for the award of costs.

The Plaintiff�s case is that originally he was granted a grass patta before 1937 by the inamdar of Berigai Estate and since then he was in

enjoyment of 4 acres and 35 cents. The said lands were assigned to him by the landholder for cultivation purposes in fasli 1353 for which the

landholder received nazarana and from that time onwards he continued to be in possession as ryoti lands. The Additional Assistant Settlement

Officer, Krishnagiri, refused to recognise his rights of occupancy in the said lands on the ground that the said lands form part of the tank

poramboke and also on the ground that previous permission of the Collector u/s 20(A) of the Madras Act I of 1908 has not been obtained.

Therefore he filed the present suit for a declaration and injunction. The State of Madras, the Defendant, contends that Survey No. 50 in

Vanamangalam village in Berigai Estate has been recorded as a poramboke--Eri and well--in the village accounts and it is a tank on ground and

that the entire land is liable to submersion and therefore it is a land falling u/s 3(16)(a) of the Estates Land Act and not a ryoti land. Further the

Plaintiff has not obtained the orders of the Collector u/s 20A of the Estates Land Act converting the land into a ryoti land and therefore the

assignment of any portion of the lands on the part of the landholder was void and illegal. There was an enquiry by the Additional Assistant

Settlement Officer, Krishnagiri, u/s 11 of Act XXVI of 1948 and he, by his order, dated 16th February 1957, gave a finding that the Plaintiff was

not entitled to a ryotwari patta. He further found that the land was a communal land falling u/s 3(16)(a) of Act I of 1908. The Plaintiff has not

availed the provisions u/s 11 of the Act for revising the orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer nor had he filed revision petitions to

the Director of Settlements, Madras, or to the Board of Revenue and therefore the decision of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer has

become final and his decision cannot be questioned in a Court of law u/s 64(6)(2) of Act XXVI of 1948. The Plaintiff will be entitled to a patta

only within the machinery contemplated under Act XXVI of 1948 and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case according to the

ruling of the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2043 of 1953, dated 3rd January 1955. On these pleadings the parties went to trial. Both

the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs and dismissed the suit.

Now the Plaintiff has filed this second appeal and contended that he was entitled to-be in possession of the suit lands and the order of the

Additional Assistant Settlement Officer was not binding on him. After going through the records in this case, it has been found by both the Courts

below that the suit land was an Eri Poramboke. Further it was also found that the landholder had not obtained the permission of the Collector to

convert this land into ryoti land. There is no-evidence on record to show that the Plaintiff was cultivating the land. Exhibit A-l purporting to have

been issued on 25th March 1937 described the suit land as Eri poramboke. One of the conditions in exhibit A-1 is that the Plaintiff should not

obstruct the flow of water along the mamool channels through the-suit land to the tank, and that the mamool channels in he land for leading water

to the tank are reserved for the zamindar. The description of the land as tank poramboke is consistent with the description in the Land Record

Register exhibit B-5. There is nothing on the record to show when this tank poramboke has been converted into punja. Therefore the lower Courts

after considering the documentary evidence in this case came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff�s land was only Eri poramboke.

The next contention that was raised by the State of Madras, the Defendant, was the suit itself was not maintainable because the civil Court had

no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the Plaintiff was entitled to get a patta. It is found that after this estate was taken over by the State of

Madras the Plaintiff filed an application before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of a patta. On enquiry he found that this suit

land was a tank poramboke-and as such he was not entitled to get a ryotwari patta u/s 11 of Act XXVI of 1948. The question that arises for

consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to ryotwari patta. When there is a special machinery provided under Act XXVI of 1948 certainly

the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question. I agree with the lower Courts in the view that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into

the question.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

No costs. No leave.