RANGASAMY NAIDU Vs. VEERAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Settlement Officer (Enquiries) III, pudukottai has granted ryoti patta in favour of the 1st respondent. THE appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal ( Sub Court ), pudukottai has also failed. THE appellant herein has challenged the said order to issue ryoti patta in favour of the 1st respondent mainly on the ground that he, being the inamdar, was entitled to a notice and since no notice was given to him by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the proceeding before him was invalid as being violative of the principles of natural justice, and on merits that the claim of the 1st respondent is not covered by any of the provi-sionsof thetamilnadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal on the ground that: (i) since the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer he has no right to appeal against the said order, and (ii) there has been an order by the Settlement Officer besides the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in this behalf dated 21. 12. 1970 in which a reference as to the patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent was specifically made and the order passed by him on 17. 6. 1983 (Ex. P-15) mentioned about the village settlement records thus even if there could be condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal until the knowledge to the appellant by the order of the Settlement Officer dated 17. 6. 1983 the appeal before the tribunal was hopelessly barred by limitation. THE tribunal has also made a reference to the merits of the claim of the appellant and in this behalf made certain observations as to the genuineness of a document and the existence of any right in the appellant on the basis of such documents.

(2.) THE hurdle as to limitation is sought to be overcome by the learned counsel for the appellant by bringing to our notice the fact that the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar has given no notice to the inamdar and thus had not cared to know whether there was any valid transfer of kudiwaram in favour of the 1st respondent, the fact that there has been no interference in the exercise of possession by the appellant until the 1st respondent came to interfere with the possession of the appellant on the basis of the alleged patta and that it is not possible to infer any knowledge of the grant of ryoti patta to the 1st respondent only on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar (Settlement officer) dated 17. 6. 1983, Ex. P-15. According to the learned counsel for the appellant great injustice has been done to a person who has been cultivating the land throughout without any interruption when by grant of a patta in favour of the 1st respondent a basis for a claim of title to the property has been provided to the 1st respondent.

(3.) . It goes without saying that any enquiry without notice to a person, who is entitled to such notice, shall render the enquiry wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The condition precedent being the notice and opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence. Enquiry under sec. 11 (2) of the act is no doubt a summary enquiry and as held by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam and affirmed by the Supreme Court in (1985)4 S. C. C. 10, the enquiry under Sec. 11 of the Act is for revenue purposes, that is to say, for fastening the liability upon the person in occupation of the land to pay the assessment or other dues and to facilitate the recovery of such revenue from him by the Government. Any adjudication as to right, interest or title thus is not involved in the enquiry under this provision by the Assistant Settlement Officer. A judgment of the supreme Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori V. Deekshithutu, (1991)2 S. C. C. (Supp.) 228 has, however, brought the whole scheme of the law again in doubt as in this judgment, it is observed: ' 'It was unfortunate that it was not brought to the notice of the court that the purpose of Estate Abolition Act was not solely for the purpose of collecting the revenue to the State. The act has its birth from a long drawn struggle carried on by the ryots in Madras Presidency for permanent ryotwari settlement of tenures and grant of permanent occupancy rights and the Indian National Congress espoused their rights and passed resolution at avadi Session to make a legislation in that regard. The recovery of revenue was only secondary. In Syamala Rao v. Radhakanthaswami Varu, 1984 An. L. J. 286. A division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member considered the historical background, the purpose of the Act and the scheme envisaged therein in extenso and held that the preamble of the Estate Abolition Act was to repeal the permanent settlement, the acquisition of the rights of the landholders in the estates and introduction of the ryotwari settlement therein'under Sec. 1 (4) by issuance of the notification the pre-existing rights shall cease and determine'shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances and declared that all rights and interests created in particular over the State' 'shall cease and determine as against the government' ' protected only dispossession of a person in possession of the ryotwari patta. Sec. ll envisaged enquiry into' ' the nature of the land' 'and whether' ' ryotwari land immediately before the notified dates' ' be properly included or ought to have been properly included in the holding of the ryoti. The enquiry under the Act was entrusted to the revenue authorities who have intimate knowledge of the nature of the lands and the entries in the revenue records of the holders, etc. , Act created hierarchy of the tribunals, namely Assistant Settlement Officer, settlement Officer'Director of Settlements and Board of Revenue'provided revisional powers to those authorities and ultimately the order is subject to the decision of the High Court under Art. 226. in that view it was held that by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted, the decision of Settlement Authorities under Sec. 11 was made final and no civil suit was maintainable. The legislature having made the Act to render economic justice to the ryots and excluded the dispute between landholders and the ryots covered under Secs. 12 to 15 and the ryots interse under Sec. 56 (l) (c), from the jurisdiction of the civil court, it would not be the legislative intention to expose the ryots to costly unequal civil litigation with the State of the dispute under Sec. 11. It is not necessary in this case to broach further, but suffice to state that unfortunately this historical perspective and the real purpose and proper scope and operation of Estate Abolition Act was not focussed to the notice of the court' '. The above, we sought only to emphasise that even a summary enquiry under Secl1 (2) of the Act will have a far-reaching consequence upon the right of a person who has held the land as his private property or is entitled to hold such property and is denied the right to hold property only by an omission of the Assistant Settlement Officer in not giving notice to such person or making the order known to him in accordance with law. The effect of the enquiry being as drastic as the Supreme Court has indicated, it is necessary that every care is taken to recognise only that person who has the requisite qualification for the ryoti patta. This can be achieved by only adherence strictly to the rule of notice, affording an opportunity of being heard and an opportunity to lead evidence in support of its case to any party. A person aggrieved thus should not be denied the right of appeal merely on a plea of an indirect knowledge of any enquiry conducted by the Assistant settlement Officer and grant of ryoti patta to some one else. We are of the opinion, accordingly, that it will not be correct on the facts of this case to deny to the appellant herein the right of appeal before the tribunal and also the right of being heard and to adduce evidence, if any, before the Assistant settlement Officer.