Madras High Court
Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 June, 2018
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.06.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.6398 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.6894 of 2006 --- Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam Muslim Jamath Nirvaaha Mandram, rep. by its President Haji H.V.Abdul Rahman ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The Director of Survey & Settlement, Chennai 600 005. 4.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, now at Office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai. 5.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai now at Office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai. 6.The District Collector Ramanathapuram. 7.The Commissioner Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram. 8.The Tahsildar Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in R.Dis.K1/RP-1/2002 and to quash the order dated 21.10.2005 made therein. For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.K.Ravikumar for R1 to R6 and R8 Additional Government Pleader Mr.P.S.Jayakumar for R7 ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in R.Dis.No.K1/RP-1/2002 and to quash the order dated 21.10.2005 made therein.
2. Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam Muslim Jamath Nirvaaha Mandram represented by its President is the petitioner herein. The brief facts of the case as averred in the affidavit filed by the President of the Petitioner are as follows:
3. The petitioner owns an extent of 3.72 acres of land in old Survey No.287/932 in Pattinamkathan Village, Ramanathapuram. The land is classified as 'Oorani' and the public entering the Pallivasal used to wash their hands and feet in the said 'Oorani' before entering the Pallivasal for offering worship. The Pallivasal also draws water from the said Oorani for their use. Similar Oorani lands are also situated immediately adjacent to the Pallivasal in Survey No.287/931. The Oorani lands are part of the Pallivasal and is used by the Pallivasal for their purpose.
4. Pattinamkathan village was taken over under the provisions of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). At the time of settlement, the Oorani lands of the petitioner Pallivasal has been classified as Pallivasal Oorani, however, the lands were registered as Poramboke without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands. When the petitioner discovered the error in the settlement proceedings, the petitioner moved the second respondent to re-vest the Registry with respect to the Oorani lands being 3.72 acres in old Survey No.287/932 in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent vide order dated 10.11.1987 directed the petitioner to move the competent Authority seeking remedy under the provisions of civil law. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the first respondent and the first respondent vide letter dated 13.03.1990 directed the petitioner to file revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur/ fourth respondent as the lands in question have already been classified as Oorani Poramboke. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.P.No.9 of 1992 before the fourth respondent and the same was dismissed by the fourth respondent on 28.06.1992 on the ground that the lands in question are non-ryotwari lands on the notified date and the claim under Section 11 (a) of the Act cannot be countenanced.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved the third respondent by filing R.P.No.23 of 1992. The third respondent held that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered under Section 11 (a) of the Act and directed the fifth respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 19 A of the Act. The fifth respondent vide proceedings dated 05.06.1995 sent a proposal to the third respondent for grant of patta to the petitioner for the lands in question under Section 19 A of the Act. The third respondent vide order dated 22.06.1995 directed that patta be issued to the petitioner in respect of land measuring an extent of 1.3685.0 sq.meters in T.S.No.70 (Old Survey No.287/932-A), Pattinamkathan Village, Ramanathapuram on condition that the petitioner pays the ground rent to be fixed by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, the fifth respondent fixed the ground rent at Rs.23.25 and directed that patta be issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the eighth respondent vide proceedings dated 15.11.2002 effected necessary changes in the revenue records and directed that the land measuring an extent of 1.3685.0 sq.meters in T.S.No.70, Pattinamkathan Village be registered in the name of the petitioner.
6. While so, the seventh respondent attempted to lay road in the said Oorani lands of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed O.S.No.33 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram against the seventh respondent and the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board claiming permanent injunction. During the pendancy of the suit, the seventh respondent conceded the right, title and interest of the petitioner to the lands in question. Accordingly, a joint memo of compromise came to be filed in the said suit and the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 10.12.2002.
7. At this juncture, the petitioner received a notice from the office of the second respondent during August, 2005, in a revision petition filed by the seventh respondent against the order of the third respondent dated 22.06.1995. However, the copy of the revision petition filed by the seventh respondent was not enclosed. The first hearing of the said revision was fixed on 06.09.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the hearing and the petitioner has gone on record before the second respondent and pointed out that the copy of the revision petition filed by the seventh respondent has not been furnished to the petitioner and that the petitioner is not aware of the case that it has to meet. However, the petitioner filed objection before the second respondent.
8. The petitioner was under the impression that they would be furnished with a copy of the revision petition filed by the seventh respondent. However, the petitioner received the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.10.2005 allowing the claim of the seventh respondent and directing the lands to be classified as Government Oorani Poromboke. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has filed.
9. The sum and substance of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents are as follows:
At the time of settlement, the disputed land was registered as 'Government Poramboke' 'Pallivasal Oorani'. On petition from the petitioner, the Commissioner of Land Administration and Government directed the petitioner to seek remedy from the competent Authority. Hence, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur seeking patta for the disputed property under Section 11 (a) of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur after examining the documents placed before him, rejected the claim for patta and ordered to continue the classification of land in the records as 'Oorani Poramboke. As against the same, the petitioner filed revision petition to the Director of Survey and Settlement, who, by order dated 14.11.1994, dismissed the revision petition. However, the Director of Survey and Settlement, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai to consider the petitioner's claim under Section 19 A of the Act and requested to send proposal in this regard. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, vide letter dated 05.06.1995, sent proposal to the Director of Survey and Settlement for grant of patta under Section 19 A of the Act.
10. Subsequently, the Director of Survey and Settlement vide proceedings dated 22.06.1995 granted patta for the disputed lands under Section 19 A of the Act in favour of the petitioner and directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to fix ground rent for the disputed rent. The Assistant Settlement Officer vide proceedings dated 21.08.1995 fixed the ground rent. Thereafter, on revision filed by the Municipal Commissioner, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration vide proceedings dated 21.10.2005 set aside the orders of the Director of Survey and Settlement and ordered restoration of the lands in question to its original classification Government Oorani Poramboke in revenue accounts.
11. The learned counsel Mr.T.M.Hariharan appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner moved the second respondent to re-vest the Registry with respect to the Oorani lands being 3.72 acres in old Survey No.287/932 in favour of the petitioner, thereafter claimed only possessory right under Section 19 A of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to enjoy the property without altering the basic structure of the property. However, the entire proceedings were wrongly projected before the Authority and Authority also erroneously granted patta in favour of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel restricted his claim only in respect of possessory right under Section 19 A of the Act without altering the basic structure and not for title over the property. The learned counsel also relied upon the Wakf proforma in the year 1955.
12. Mr.K.Ravikumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the Revenue Authorities is non est in law. Even the petitioner claim only possessory right under Section 19 A before the fifth respondent. However, the fifth respondent granted patta in favour of the petitioner, though the disputed property is non Ryotwari land which already vest with the Government. The Government has passed G.O.No.1108, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 27.10.1980, imposing condition with regard to the usage of the non-ryotwari lands for religious institutions.
13. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record. The issue arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of patta or assignment in respect of the land in question, which is admittedly classified as Government Poromboke Pallivasal Oorani.
14. The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner Jamath. The petitioner, claiming patta in respect of the disputed land in question, has filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur under Section 11 (a) of the Act, which was rejected after inspection of the lands and taking note of the fact that the land in question is classified as government poromboke Pallivasal Oorani. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Director of Survey and Settlement in RP No. 23 f 1982 and it was also rejected on 14.11.1984. While rejecting the revision, a direction was given to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 19-A of the Act. On the basis of such direction, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai in the letter dated 05.06.1995, sent proposals to the Director of Survey and Settlement to grant patta to the petitioner under Section 19-A. On the basis of such proposal, the Director of Survey and Settlement granted patta to the petitioner in his proceedings dated 22.06.1995 and directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to fix the ground rent for the land in question, which was accordingly fixed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 21.08.1995. As against the grant of patta in favour of the petiitoner, the Municipal Commissioner of Ramanathapuram Municipality has filed a Revision before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 and it was allowed on 21.10.2005 by setting aside the order granting patta in favour of the petitioner. Challenging this order dated 21.10.2005, the present writ petition is filed.
15. Before venturing into the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the provisions contained under Section 3-B, 11, 14-A and 19-A of the Act, which reads as follows:-
3. Consequences of notification of estate : With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act:-
(a) The Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1947) in so far as it relates to matters other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Tamil Nadu Permanent ....
11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta Every ryot in an estate shall with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of---
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and
(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such land having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939;
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any lands as landowner on or after the 1st day of July 1945, shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
.......
14-A- Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or Oorani (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or Oorani (2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act the private tank or Oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.
.......
19-A Persons admitted into possession of non-ryoti land, how dealt with ---- (1) Except where the Government otherwise direct, no person admitted by a landholder into possession of any communal land or forest or other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be entitled to any rights in, or to remain in possession of, such land;
Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to lands for which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta under Sections 12, 13 or 14.
(2) A direction under sub-section (1) allowing any person to remain in possession of any such land may specify
(a) the assessment or ground rent payable to the Government on the land for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the estate is notified, and
(b) such special terms and conditions including the period for which such person may remain in possession of the land as the Government may consider necessary in the public interest.
16. On a cumulative reading of the above provisions contained in the Act it is clear that water bodies such as oorani, tank or lakes including Private or Public Oorani have to be protected and patta in respect of those lands need not be granted in favour of any one. Section 14-A contains a specific bar for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any private tank or oorani and even if any such patta is granted, it shall stand cancelled.
17. On a plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, it is evident that the entire estate, including all communal land, poromboke, other non-ryoti land, waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranis, including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest with them, free from all encumbrance and consequently, the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Tamil Nadu irrigation Cess Act, 1865 and all other enactments are applicable to ryotwari area
18. In the present case, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai granted patta to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 19-A of the Act. Section 19-A would clearly state that except where the Government otherwise direct, no person admitted by a landholder into possession of any communal land or forest or other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be entitled to any rights in or to remain in possession of such land. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai was set aside at the instance of the Municipal Commissioner, Ramanathapuram by passing an order dated 21.10.2005, which is impugned in this writ petition.
19. It is needless to mention that Ooranies are meant for storage of water, both for drinking and other use. Every villages in our State, during the early 1950's had three water bodies, one for irrigation, one for cattle and an Oorani (pond) for drinking water purpose. All these are rain-fed. Many Villages survived centuries because of the presence of these water bodies. Thus, water is a bounty given by nature and it has to be preserved at any cost. In the present day scenario, already, several lakes, tanks and ooranies which our forefathers have left for our use have been indiscriminately destroyed without knowing their avowed use and object. The water bodies are greatest source for water and where the tank or lake brims to it's fullest capacity, there will not be any water scarcity. These tanks or ooranies are meant for the use of the common man in general and it cannot be assigned or any right thereof given to any private individual who can stake an exclusive right, claim or interest thereof. In the instant case, the land in dispute is classified as Government Poromboke Pallivasal Oorani. It is needless to mention that Ooranies are exclusively meant for catering to the drinking water needs, while tanks and lakes are meant for dual purpose of drinking and other purposes. It is high time that the lakes, Ooranies or in whatever name they are called and are classified as water bodies has to be preserved for the present as well as the next generation to meet their water needs. Our Country is witnessing a burgeoning population. We have already destroyed half of the water bodies and atleast the remaining has to be preserved and protected so that our future generation can live in peace.
20. As regards the right of the petitioner to get assignment or patta in respect of the land which is classified as a water body, reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of (A. Chinnasamy Gounder vs. Chinnaswamy Gounder, Son of Perumal Gounder) reported in 1975 I MLJ 105 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held in para No.2 as follows:-
2. In our opinion, the learned Judge's view cannot be sustained. The effect of the notification under Section 3 of the Abolition Act is to transfer the ownership of the entire estate, including communal land, to the Government, and the vesting is absolute free from all encumbrances. It is now well settled that no title to any part of the land vests in any person except as provided under the Act and through the procedure envisaged under its provisions. That being so, ryotwari patta would issue either for ryoti land or for land shown to be private land either to the ryot or to the quondam landholder as the case may be. As for communal lands, the Act does not contemplate conferment of ryotwari patta on any one. Be it noted that the ownership in the communal lands is with the Government, which can deal with it in any way it likes, subject, of course, to the communal character of the land. That precisely is what the Board did in this case. Section 19-A deals with such communal lands. Sub-section (2) of the Section is specific that in respect of such lands, Government may allow a person to remain in possession subject to payment of assessment and such specific terms and conditions as may be specified. It is not merely communal land which is not likely to be used as such or would cease to be as such that is within the scope of Section 19-A. Even lands which are still communal lands and required for communal purposes would fallw ithin the ambit of Section 19-A as its terms obviously indicate. The observations relied on by the learned Judge do not have the effect of taking out all such lands as are likely to be not used for communal purpose from the purview of section 19-A. On facts, the decision in the writ appeal went on an entirely different footing, which has no relevance to the present consideration.
21. This Court, (Justice G. Rajasuria, as he then was) in the Judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed in Second Appeal No. 676 of 2000 (Subramaniya Thevar @ Koomapattiyan and others vs. K.K. Milraja and others) held in para No. 15, as follows:-
15. The cumulative reading of those two provisions would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that all water bodies such as tanks, ooranies etc., including private ones with effect from 1974 got transferred in favour of the Government. Here the suit property is nothing but admittedly an oorani which the plaintiffs claimed to be their private one as per Ex.A2., even then, it got transferred in favour of the Government as per the operation of the law cited supra. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 49 of 1974, only, such a situation had arisen with prospective effect and not in respect of Ooranis which are private properties already got vested on the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A2. Such an argument cannot be countenanced and it is neither here nor there. A mere reading of Section 3 (b) and 14-A of Act 26 of 1948, would demonstrate that even such private Ooranis got transferred to Government by the operation of law. In such a case, there is no question of contending that because the plaintiffs happened to be the owners as per Ex.A2, those provisions of law would have no effect relating to the suit property. The very purpose of those provisions are to transfer such private Ooranies in favour of the Government so as to protect the water bodies and no more elaboration is required in this regard.
22. In the above referred case, the plaintiffs therein claims right over a private Oorani by virtue of a sale deed dated 11.10.1946. Notwithstanding the purchase of the land, which is classified as Oorani, this Court held that by virtue of operation of the law, the plaintiff therein ceased to exist as a owner as the private Oorani vest with the Government by virtue of the Act, free from all encumbrance. It was further held that the very purpose and object of the Act is to transfer such private Ooranies in favour of the Government so as to protect the water bodies. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in the above said Judgment of this Court.
23. Admittedly, the disputed land is classified in the revenue records as Government Poromboke - Pallivasal Oorani. The Government is the paramount title holder of such lands and the petitioner cannot have any right over the said land besides the said land is a non Ryotwari land which was taken over by the Government under the Act 26 of 1948. Earlier, the petitioner Jamath filed petition under Section 11 (a) of the Act before the fourth respondent claiming patta in favour of the petitioner based on their pre-existing right. However, the said petition was dismissed on 28.06.1992 on the ground that the lands in question are non-ryoti lands on the notified date and the claim under Section 11 (a) of the Act cannot be countenanced. Even though the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai ultimately issued patta, of course erroneously, in favour of the petitioner, it was reversed by the order, which is impugned in this writ petition.
24. Earlier, the fifth respondent fixed the ground rent at Rs.23.25 and directed that patta be issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the eighth respondent vide proceedings dated 15.11.2002 effected necessary changes in the revenue records and directed that the extent of 1.3685.0 sq.meters in T.S.No.70, Pattinamkathan Village be registered in the name of the petitioner. This is absolutely incorrect since the petitioner's claim is only possessory right under Section 19 A of the Act. However, the entire case was projected as if the petitioner Jamath is entitled to patta in the Oorani land which is unsustainable one. Even the Act itself very clearly says the non Ryotwari land and Oorani Porombokes vest with the Government. While being so, the petitioner claim only possessory rights and not title over the property and the petitioner is not entitled for any Ryotwari patta.
25. The un-disputed facts are that the disputed property is Oorani land. Oorani belongs to general public. Even as per Section 3 of Act 26 of 1948, the non ryotwari lands vest with the Government and no person including religious person can claim their possessory right based on the pre-existing right. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Wakf proforma in the year 1955. On perusal of the Wakf proforma, it says that the property belongs to Muthavalli Jamath as their exclusive rights which goes contrary to the Act itself. Even they produced Fasli in the year 1367 which granted title in favour of the Pallivasal. It is absolutely against the stand taken by the Jamath before the fifth respondent wherein the Jamath claim only possessory rights before the fifth respondent. They are not claiming title over the property. However, Fasli in the year 1367 and the Wakf Proforma are contrary to the claim made before the fifth respondent.
26. Our forefathers have founded, established and maintained water bodies for different purpose like lake, canal and they are meant for agricultural purpose, tank and pond are meant for religious and communal purpose and Oorani for drinking purpose. Like that the benevolent social oriented people created water bodies for the needs of the next generation. The Ooranies were developed as the main water supply systems in Tamil Nadu centuries back. These earthen bunded ponds were constructed by the collective efforts of the people over the ages and have been designed hydrologically to have adequate and assured inflow of surface runoffs. Almost all Ooranis are well connected with irrigation tanks called Kanmoi.
27. Ooranis are small ponds that have collected rainwater from rains and from surrounding catchment areas. These Ooranis traditionally were used for various needs of drinking, washing, bathing needs of the villages around it. Oorani is a Tamil word meaning village pond. It is an institution as old as Tamil society. Poet Thiruvalluvar referred to them 2000 years ago. Ooranis were usually endowed by ruling or merchant princes. Beneficiaries were involved in excavation and maintenance. They developed a sense of ownership. After Independence the government departments took over every aspect of village management and Ooranis fell to neglect.
28. Even this Oorani land has already been described by Poet Thiruvalluvar in Thirukural which has been referred hereunder:
22/ xg;g[ut[ mwpjy;
5) CUzp. ePh;epiwe;J mw;nw. cyFmthk;
ngh;mwp thsd; jpU The above couplet, if reasonably interpreted, would mean that wealth of a man on eminent knowledge who desires to exercise the benevolence approved by the worth, is like the full water of a city tank.
29. Oorani in our culture was used as water tank for the purpose of taking drinking water by the general public and even prior to two thousand years that Oorani appeared all over Tamil Nadu for the purpose of taking drinking water. That Oorani was later on named with the adjacent land mark place and was called by referring the neighbouring land. That does not mean the neighbouring person can claim title over the property on par with the other general people. The petitioner community can claim possessory right along with other general public. They cannot claim exclusive right over the property. The petitioner Jamath initially claimed title over the property before the fourth respondent. However, thereafter, they raised the claim under Section 19 A for possessory right before the fifth respondent. The common concern itself prove that the petitioner have no title over the property.
30. For all the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any error in the order passed by the second respondent. The In the larger interest of the society, this Court directs the Government to maintain particular Oorani as community land for the purpose of taking drinking water without any further alienation.
31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
28.06.2018 pri To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Director of Survey & Settlement, Chennai 600 005.
4.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, now at Office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai.
5.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai now at Office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai.
6.The District Collector Ramanathapuram.
7.The Commissioner Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram.
8.The Tahsildar Ramanathapuram.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri W.P.No.6398 of 2006 And W.P.M.P.No.6894 of 2006 28.06.2018 W.P.No.6398 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.6894 of 2006 M. DHANDAPANI, J This writ petition is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Para No.15 of the order dated 28.06.2018 made in W.P.No.6398 of 2006, while quoting Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948, a typeographical mistake had occurred whereby Section 3 of the said Act has not been fully quoted. Therefore, he prayed for passing appropriate order to amend Para No.15 of the Order dated 28.06.2018.
3.Having regard to the above submission of the counsel for the petitioner, Para No.15 the order dated 28.06.2018 made in W.P.No.6398 of 2006, modified and it shall be read as follows:
15. Before venturing into the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the provisions contained under Section 3 (a) and (b), 11, 14-A and 19-A of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"3. Consequences of notification of estate : With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act:-
(a) the Tamil Nadu (Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Tami Nadu Act XXX of 1947) (in so far as it relates) to mattes other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Tamil Nadu Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 (Tamil Nadu Regulation XXV of 1802) the (Tamil Nadu) Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1908) and all other enactments applicable to the estate as such shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate.
(b) the entire estate (including all communal lands, porombokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams; (tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works; fisheriesw and ferries) shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the (Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864) the (Tamil Nadu (irrigation Cess Act, 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865) and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate.
Except the above modification in para No.15 of the order dated 28.06.2018, the Order dated 28.06.2018 in WP No. 6398 of 2006 shall remain unaltered.
4.Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and re-issue copy of the order to the respective counsel at free of costs.
20.08.2018 gmd/vsg1 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
gmd/vsg1 W.P.No.6398 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.6894 of 2006 20.08.2018