T. Venkatadri, J. - (1.) SOME of the ryots of Baburayampettai village in Maduranthakam Taluk, Chingleput District, have filed these petitions to quash the order dated 31st August, 1964, of the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) Chingleput, declaring that the lands, for which the respondent -Devasthanam has claimed patta, are the private lands of the Devasthanam.
(2.) EVER since the village of Baburayampettai was declared an Inam Estate under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, there has been regular litigation between the ryots of the Village and the Devasthanam. The Devasthanam has been contending that it possessed the Melwaram and the Kudiwaram rights in the lands and that the village was not an Inam Estate. In 1950, the Inam Settlement Officer, Chittoor, declared Baburayampettai as an Inam Estate. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, holding that there was no proof that the grant was of both the warams in the Village or that the grantee possessed Kudiwaram rights of its own at the time of the grant. The respondent -Devasthanam started a second set of proceedings with an application under Section 15 of the Abolition Act for the grant of ryotwari patta claiming the lands as the private lands of the Devasthanam. In that petition, the tenants including the petitioners raised an objection that they had occupancy rights in the lands and that they had been in occupation of the lands from generation to generation with proprietary rights. The temple authorises, on the other hand, asserted that they were receiving rent from the tenants, that the revenue records would show that the temple was the pattadar, and that the ryots had executed muchilikas to the Devasthanam as Ekabogam mirasdar. The Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta to the Devasthanam holding that the lands were the private lands of the temple. The tenants filed an appeal to the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Vellore. The Tribunal was of the view that the Assistant Settlement Officer had not stated how he considered the lands to be private lands, i.e., whether the lands were private lands such as Khambattam, Khas etc. as defined in Section 3(10)(b)(i) of the Estates Land Act or whether they fell under the other types referred to in the section. On that view, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of the Assistant Settlement Officer to examine, the question afresh in the light of documentary evidence.
(3.) WHEN the matter went back to the Assistant Settlement Officer Chingleput, he went through the evidence adduced before him. He found that the total extent of the village was about 600 acres and 450 acres were cultivated that the temple never cultivated the lands, that the ryots cultivated the lands, that the Devasthanam had no kudi right, that the ryots constructed about 60 wells and that the Devasthanam never put up any well. He also found that the Devasthanam never paid any money after the estate was taken over by Government and that the evidence showed that the collection was made only from the ryots. In the end, he dismissed the claim of the Devasthanam for grant of ryotwari patta The Devasthanam preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chingleput. The Tribunal once again remitted the matter to the file of the Assistant Settlement Officer to study the history and nature of the lands in the village and then to decide whether patta should be granted to the temple on proof of possession and cultivation or whether compensation should be paid for the items of lands taken over by the State.;