Madras High Court
Damodardas Chatram At Thuverankurichi ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its ... on 29 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(3)CTC631
Author: D. Raju
Bench: D. Raju
ORDER D. Raju, J.
1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963, by the appellant who had lost before the both the authorities below. The appellant chatram staked its claim for ryotwari patta in respect of about 66.08 acres of land comprised in survey No. 268/1 Ponnammapatti village of Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. The claim of the petitioner to an extent of 10.30 acres alone was countenanced and in respect of 55.78 acres the same was rejected. As against this, the matter has been pursued on appeal in CMA. No. 266 of 1968 and the Tribunal by its order dated 19.2.71 remitted the matter for consideration afresh and thereupon the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai who conducted an enquiry afresh sustained the claim of the appellant only to the extent in respect of which originaly patta was granted and in respect of 35.78 acres rejected the claim on the ground that it is tank poramboke by his order dated 2.3.73. Thereupon the matter has been pursued on appeal in CMA. No. 296 of 1973 and the Tribunal by its order dated 27.1.77 confirmed the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer. As against this, the matter has been pursued before this court in STA.No.11 of 1977 and by an order dated 6.7.82 the matter has been remitted for consideration in the light of certain direction issued in the order of remand passed by this Court. After carrying our the terms of remand and marking the relevant evidence and the report of the technical authorities, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur by his order dated 12.11.83 rejected the claim on the ground the appellant is not entitled to patta in respect of the lands covered by tank meant for irrigation. Aggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Tiruchiraplli in C.M.No. 1 of 1984. The Tribunal also elaborately considered the matter in the light of the evidence on record and ultimately by its order dated 13.7.84 confirmed the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and rejected the appeal holding that the appellant is not entitled to any patta as prayed for and even in respect of 2.20 acres which was claimed to be not actually part of the tank as such. In rejecting the claim the authorities below, including the Tribunal, Choose to place reliance upon Section 10(b) as also the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976, even if the tank is to be treated as private tank. Not satisfied the appellant has filed the above appeal.
2. Mr. Devanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the orders of the authorities below rejecting the claim for patta is bad in law and the authorities below misconstrued the prohibition in the matter of grant of patta in respect of the lands comprised in the irrigation tank. The learned counsel invited our attention to the orders of the authorities below in detail and also the report of the technical authority as also the provisions contained in Section 10(b) and 10 as also the decision reported in Lakshmipathy Narakan v. State of Madras, 72 L.W. 505 and contended that the minor inam granted comprised of the tank itself and inasmuch as the tank is used or irrigated not only the lands of the others but also the lands of the appellant land holder, there is no justification to deny patta in favour of the appellant. Argued the learned counsel further that there is no embargo in the provisions of the Act to prohibit the grant of patta in respect of the tank as such and the provisions contained in Section 10(b) and 10-A has relevance and application only to tank bed and private tanks or ooranies and inasmuch as the tank in question has been found to be a public irrigation tank, there is no provision in the Act as such prohibition the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the land holder.
3. Though the submission of the learned counsel appears to be ingenious and novel, it cannot withstand a close scrutiny even for a moment. The authorities below have meticulously and extensively adverted to the He of the land including the hydraulic particulars as disclosed from the report of the technical authority which justified the finding arrived at by the authorities below that the extent in question measuring about 66.08 acres are actually the water spread area of the irrigation tank. The Tribunal as also the original authority has specifically adverted to the claim in respect of an extent of 2.20 acres in respect of which it was contended that it did not form port of the irrigation tank as such but taking into account the evidence on record it was held concurrently by both the authorities below that though the extent of 2.20 acres used to dry during the season when there was no water in the tank, during rainy days, the said extent was also found to be with full of water and that at any rate it was not proved to have been ever under cultivation. In view of the above, the fact that the entire area formed part of an irrigation tank stood established beyond doubt. As a matter of fact, as noticed supra, the very stand taken for the appellant is that the lands having been held to be part of public irrigation tank, the claim of patta by the appellant could not have been rejected since there is no specific prohibition in the Act from granting ryotwari patta in favour of the land holder of the lands comprised in public irrigation tank. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel proceeds upon an erroneous understanding of the prohibition incorporated in the Act under consideration. Even in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Lakshmipathy Narakan v. State of Madras, 72 L.W. 505 though arising under Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, it was observed while adverting to Section 3(b) Abolition Act which is in pari materia with Section 3(b) of the present Act that it vests all irrigation works in the Government and a right to ryotwari patta is created under the Act only in respect of private land and that too after an investigation whether they were such lands on the date of the vesting. It was also observed therein that the extent of ryotwari lands to which reference has been made indicated that irrigation sources belong to Government, for then alone it could be able to direct an equitable distribution of water among the various pattadars and that ownership of the irrigation sources provide an important head of taxation which would bring increasing revenue to the state as and when more and more lands are cultivated.
4. Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu 30 of 191963 which provides for the vesting of minor inams in the Government declares that every minor inams including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, minds and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies i.e., including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works etc., shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. The right of every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram interest in inam land alone is preserved for being considered and countenanced with issue of patta. As a matter of act, Section 19 illustrates certain categories of lands in respect of which there is an embargo upon the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of any one and beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, and drainage surplus or irrigation channels are also some such category of lands in respect of which no ryotwari patta could be granted. Section 10 of the Act inverted by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976 prohibited the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of even private tanks or ooranies. While that be the probation, the probation contemned in Section 10 and 10-A cannot be construed in a manner as to enable patta being granted in respect of the lands comprised in public irrigation tanks as such merely because neither Section 10 nor Section 10-b specifically made any reference to the public irrigation tank. The fallacy in the submission of the learned counsel, according to us, lies in ignoring the scope of vesting under Section 3(b) of the Act and the effect and consequence of such vesting as laid down by their Lordships of the full Bench in the decision reported in Lakshmipathy Narakan v. State of Madras, 72 L.W. 505 while construing an analogous and in pari material provisions in an allied legislation. The effect of vesting of tanks and ooranies, which in our opinion would take within it purview all irrigation tanks, public or private and also the specific mention about the irrigation works, is total and absolute and such vesting in absolute terms in favour of the state itself disentified any one from claiming ryotwari patta in respect of public irrigation tanks or irrigation works. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of any specific embargo in Section 10(b) and 10-A of the Act thee was no impediment for the parties to get patta in respect of the lands comprised in the irrigation tanks in question.
5. The appeal therefore fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.