Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) He submitted that as against the impugned order, the legal heirs of Abdul Rasheed filed Writ Petition No.20579 of 2003 challenging the impugned proceedings dated 30.3.2003 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.11.2006. Therefore, the patta holders have abandoned their claim and subsequently, no other person is entitled to claim any relief either before the authority or before the court. The cultivating tenants, the petitioners cannot claim any right de horse the claim of the khazi service providers in view of the specific provision under the Act 30 of 1963, viz., Chapter III Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act. He pointed out that even in the order in STA No.41 of 1977 dated 20.7.1982, this court has stated that Abdul Rasheed is the person entitled to grant a patta for rendering khazi service and that is subject to conditions prescribed under the Act 30 of 1963. Therefore, the cultivating tenants cannot plead for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act.

12. The brief outline of the fact of the dispute is as follows:-

(a) On 15.2.1965, the minor inam lands in Survey Nos.145, 159 and 222 admeasuring 6.19 acres in Kumaraswamipatti Revenue village, Salem Taluk, Devadayam Minor Inam Lands covered by Title Deed No.572 was taken over by the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. Thereafter, one Abdul Rasheed and others filed an application before the Settlement Tahsildar claiming Ryotwari Patta stating that they are doing Khazi service. This was rejected by the Settlement Tahsildar on 20.10.1966 and the patta was granted in favour of Jamia Masjid, Salem, the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.15659 of 2003. The said Abdul Rasheed and others preferred an appeals MIA No.11 of 1967 and 86 of 1968 before the Sub Judge, Salem, the Tribunal constituted under the Act, challenging the order of Settlement Tahsildar dated 20.10.1966. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Settlement Tahsildar for denovo adjudication. The Settlement Tahsildar by order dated 10.11.1972, in order SR.266/Act/3063/Salem Taluk/66 held that the claimant, the Khazi service provider and the respondent Salem Jamia Masjid did not prove that they were personally cultivating the suit lands for continuous period of 12 years immediately before 1.4.1960 and therefore, are not lawfully eligible for Ryotwari Patta under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Settlement Tahsildar ordered that the land vests with the Government and treated as assessed waste wet. Aggrieved by that order, the claimants, legal heirs of the Khazi service provider and the Salem Jamia Masjid went on appeal to the Minor Inam Tribunal and the case was decided on 30.10.1975 in MIA Nos.10 of 1973, 27 of 1973 and 85 of 1974. The Tribunal rejected the plea for Ryotwari patta in respect of the Khazi service provider and granted the patta in favour of Wakf Board for the Khazi Service of Salem Town. Aggrieved thereby, Abdul Rasheed filed appeal STA No.41 of 1977 before this Court. Pending STA No.41 of 1977, Abdul Rasheed died on 20.5.1978. On 20.7.1982, this Court decided the STA No.41 of 1977 and held that the land being service inam directed that the patta should be granted in favour of Abdul Rasheed under Section 8 of the Act subject to conditions laid down in the Act. Thereafter, it appears, patta was issued in favour of Abdul Rasheed on condition that he should serve as Khazi.
(i) The land in question is a service inam land and absolutely vest with the Government as early as on 15.2.1965. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:-
"A perusal of the records shows that before the updating registry, S.Nos.145 and 159 covered by TD.No.572 was registered in the name of Jamia Masjid, S.No.145 was sub divided as 145/4 and S.No.159 was sub divided as S.No.159/5. Patta has been transferred in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Rasheed as per Salem Tahsildar's order No.1940/6/ii/85-86 dated 14.11.85. It is opined that the order transferring the patta in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Rasheed on the basis of the "Bouthi Vaisu" is not at all satisfied the conditions as patta has been granted to the deceased Abdul Rasheed as a service grant. There is no documentary evidence to show that the legal heirs of the deceased did khazi services after getting proper orders. It is proved that neither Thiru Abdul Rasheed who has been granted patta for the suit lands under reference by the judgment of High Court, Chennai nor the legal heirs of the deceased in whose name the pattas transferred under Bouthi Varisu in the judgment of High Court, Chennai dated 21.7.1982 did Khazi service."