- (1.)THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent herein relating to his proceedings CLA.D. Dis. (K) R.P. 64/1982 and quash the order dated 13.2.1990.
(2.)THE petitioner herein is the idol of Sri Kamakshiamman of Kancheepuram represented by the Executive Officer. THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been endowed among other properties an extent of 0.4439 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No. 625/1 and 0.3812 sq ft. in T.S. No. 625/2 Kancheepuram Town and Taluk. Chengai Anna District. THE Settlement Tahsildar III Chengalpattu granted to the petitioner herein ground rent patta under Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963). THE second respondent filed a revision petition against the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar III Chengalpattu granting patta to the petitioner. THE revision petition was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Villupuram. THE Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the same as belated as the petition had been filed after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. As against the said orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the second respondent herein filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur with a delay of four days in preferring the said revision petition. THE Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, by his order dated 3.8.1982 set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and also the order of the Settlement Tashildar, granting ground rent patta to the petitioner herein. THE Settlement Officer further ordered that the land in question be vested with the Government under Section 3 (b) of the Act. As against the order dated 3.8.1982 of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur the petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the first respondent Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. Chepauk, Madras. THE first respondent by this order dated 13.2.1990 in CLA.D. Dis.(K) R.P. 64/1982 dismissed the same. THE said order of the first respondent is impugned in this writ petition.
While passing the impugned order dated 13.2.1990, the first respondent has observed thus:

S. No. 625/1 and 2 were already granted patta first by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of Sri Kamakshiamman temple, Kanchee-puram and on appeal by one Tmt. G. Saradambal, the Assistant Settlement Officer had revised that order and allowed patta in favour of Tmt. Saradambal for S. No. 625/1 (10 cents). While it is so, one Thiru G. Srinivasan the respondent herein first put in a petition to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram claiming patta for T.S. No. 625 without mentioning the sub division. Subsequently he had clarified that his claim related to 625/2 and not to 625/1. On receipt of the clarification, the Assistant Settlement Officer informed the petitioner, the respondent herein, that he presented the petition after 12 years and hence no action could be taken in this office.

It is seen that, the Assistant Settlement Officer Chengalpattu in R.P. 7/74/13 Rev/Act 30/63/KPM dated 28.2.1975 on a revision petition filed by Tmt. Saradambal against the same order of Settlement Tahsildar SR. 2729/68/KPM/Act 30/63 dated 28.5.1968, set aside the above order of Settlement Tahsildar and allowed Ground rent patta under Section 13(1) of the Act 30/63 in favour of Tmt. Saradambal Ammal in respect of S. No. 625/1 (10 cents). But the Settlement Officer without taking into account the above revisional order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu in respect of S. No. 625/1 passed orders setting aside the original order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar in respect of both S. Nos. 625/1 and 625/2. The appeal before the Settlement Officer was only in respect of S. No. 625/2. Hence the order of the Settlement Officer in respect of S. No. 625/1 which was already allowed on patta is irrelevant and requires to be set aside in the circumstances, the order of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in SR. Sec. 13/KPM/82 dated 3.8.1982 in respect of T.S. No. 625/1 measuring 0-04439 square feet is set aside. 11. From the examination of the records, written arguments as well as oral arguments, it is very clear that site belongs to the Devasthanam and the superstructure belongs to the respondent. There is no coalescence of ownership proved either by the revision petitioner or by the respondent. Therefore nobody is entitled to Ground rent patta as per the decision reported in 93 Law Weekly page 707 as held by the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. 12. In the circumstances I agree with the order of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in respect of T.S. No. 625/2 only and accordingly direct the revision petition filed by the Executive Officer, Kamakshiamman Devasthanam be and is hereby rejected. As ordered by the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur the land in question in T.S. No. 625/2 shall vest in Government under Section 3(b)of Act 30/63. It will be open to the superstructure owner (i.e.) the respondent herein to apply to the Revenue Authorities for patta outside the scope of Abolition Act." Aggrieved against the orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 4. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner temple is that the Settlement Officer ought not to have (sic) confirmed that the delay was only four days while entertaining the revision petition filed by the second respondent herein. The Settlement Officer has failed to go into the merits of the case and failed to note that there is an abnormal delay of 12 years in preferring the revision. The reasoning given by the Settlement Officer while condoning the delay is that the revision petitioner has stated that the papers have been misplaced and he was able to trace out in the meanwhile and there occurred a delay of four days. On that ground the Settlement Officer should not have condoned the delay. 5. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer in SR. 1/Sec. 13/KPM/82 dated 3.8.1982 reveals that in the order dated 15.11.1981 the assistant Settlement Officer has informed the revision petitioner-second respondent in the writ petition that no action can be taken on his revision petition on the ground that the said revision petition had been presented after a lapse of 12 years against the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar on 28.5.1968 granting patta to the petitioner temple. The Settlement Officer has further stated in his order that the revision petitioner therein has admitted that as the impugned endorsement had been misplaced in the office of his advocate, a delay of four days had occurred in filing the revision petition. After issuance of notice to both parties, the delay has been condoned by the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer has observed that the revision petitioner's wife owns the superstructure on the site in question but not the site and that the respondent owns the site in question but not the superstructure thereon. The Settlement Officer has relied upon the decision of this Court in Arulmighu Kumarakattalai Subramaniasawami Devas-thanam v. K.S. Sundararajulu I.L.R. 1975 -1-Madras 501 wherein it has been held that Section 13 of Act 30 of 1963 would apply only if the owner of the building is also the owner of the site. The Settlement Officer has proceeded on the basis that the revision petitioner-second respondent herein has restricted his claim to the issue of a notification that his wife owns the superstructure existing on the land in question. The Settlement Officer has relied upon the decision of this court in K. Vellappa Gounder and sons by partner K. Vellappa Gounder and others v. K.S. Thirugnanam (93 L.W. 707) wherein this court has held that in order to enable the person to get ground rent patta under Section 13, he must be the owner of the site and the building and if the owner of the building is anybody other than the landholder, the land will be vested in Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. Following the decision of this court cited above, the Settlement Officer, has set aside the orders granting patta by the Settlement Tahsildar and also the impugned endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He has further held that the land in question be vested with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. The Settlement Officer has further observed that it would be open to the person who owns the buildings to apply to Government for grant of ground rent patta outside the provisions of the Act.

Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 deals with the vesting of Minor Inams in Government. Section 3(b) of the Act reads thus: "every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851 (Central Act XII of 1851) except Sections 2 and 12, the Madras City Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1867 (Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1867) The Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1964), the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), the Tamil Nadu Transferred, Territory Ryotwari Settlement Act 1964 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari lands shall apply to the minor inams."

(3.)AS per the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act stated above every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies including private tanks and orranies and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. AS the land in question is an Inam land, it stood transferred to the Government and vested in them.
Section 13 of the Act deals with the vesting of buildings which reads as follows:

"(1). Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls to levy the appropriate assesment thereon. (2) In this section, "building" includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto."

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner temple was granted patta in the year 1968 and it is not in dispute that the second respondent herein had the knowledge of granting patta to the petitioner temple in the year 1968. In such circumstances, the second respondent herein should have chosen to avail the remedies open to him immediately. The reasoning given by the second respondent that the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer has been lost in the office of the counsel and found only after a period of 12 years is untenable. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Settlement Officer has erred in taking cognizance of the above fact. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the second respondent herein has only stated that the endorsement has been lost in the counsel's office and he has not explained the reasons for the delay. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the Settlement Officer should have rejected the revision petition of the second respondent only on the ground that it has been filed after nearly 12 years and the Settlement Officer has failed to decide the fact whether there is a delay of four days or 12 years. The Settlement Officer has just believed the version of the second respondent that there was only a delay of four days and has condoned the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further emphasised that it is unbelievable that the endorsement could be found out nearly after a period of 12 years and it is only an afterthought to add the period of limitation. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that no material has been placed before the Settlement Officer to prove that the second respondent is the owner of the building. He has further argued that even the case of the second respondent is accepted that his wife has purchased the site T.S. No. 625/2, the land being the minor inam automatically stands transferred to the Government in view of Section 3(b) of the Act XXX of 1963.