Misra, J. - (1.) These two appeals raise a common question hence are being disposed of by means of this common judgment. The question raised, is whether Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai, consisting of two distinct areas, viz., Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai was known at the relevant time, is a minor inam coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act 30 of 1963') or it would fall under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1963, (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act No. 26 of 1963'). The State Government initially issued notification treating it to be under Act No. 26 of 1963, later withdrew and notified it under Act No. 30 of 1963. The appellants' contention is that the State Government rightly issued it to be under Act No. 30 of 1963 and it is held to be valid also by the Settlement Officer, S. R. II, Thanjavur.
(2.) The short facts are that the respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Madras Inams (Supplementary) Act (XXXI of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 31 of 1963') for a declaration that the said two distinct areas of lands in Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai Village, of Papanasam Taluk form a new inam estate falling under Act No. 26 of 1963. The notification issued by the Government of India under Act No. 30 of 1963 is illegal, liable to be quashed as the original grant of the disputed areas was not made in terms of acreages or cawnies hence would only constitute to be a part of inam estate in view of Section 2 (11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963. The Settlement Officer after hearing parties, including the State, held that the Madras High Court in Karumbavira Vanniar v. Govindaswami Vanniar, (1964) 77 Mad LW 741, held that Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai is not 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. It further recorded that evidence shows that in 1829 there were two areas, namely, Mela Thattimal Padugai (hereinafter referred to as 'Mela') and Kizha Thattimal Padugai (hereinafter referred to as 'Kizha'). The former formed part of Rajagiri village and the latter formed part of Papanasa village. It is the area of this land in Mela and Kizha which is the subject matter under consideration. The Settlement Officer held it neither to be whole village nor part village, and even not covered under Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2(11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963 as the grant is not of any fraction or specified number of shares of a part of village. It concluded that the grant was of specified extents of lands, hence, is covered by Explanation 1 (b) of Section 2(11), thus a minor inam and so the suit land in Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai is only a minor inam falling under Act No. 30 of 1963, thus upheld the impugned notification. The petition of the respondents was accordingly dismissed. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Minor Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) of Thanjavur, hereinafter referred to as 'theTribunal'). The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held with reference to the Karumbavira Vanniar (supra) that the undisputed facts which emerges are that in 1862, which is the year of grant, there were two areas, namely Mela and Kizha falling under villages Rajagiri and Papanasam, respectively. In the list of 193 villages in the grant of 1862, one of the entries is Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai. It further records, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents (appellants here) that the extent of the padugai or the boundaries of the lands in question are not given. It is these two portions, namely, Mela and Kizha, subsequently, were merged together and formed into the present revenue Village No. 5 as Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai in 1919. The Tribunal further accepted submission on behalf of the appellants (respondents here) that the said two distinct portions granted in inam can be easily identified without its extents and boundaries being given. Thus, it construed it to be a 'part village inam estate'. The Tribunal also accepted that Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai which is mentioned among 193 items covering the grant of 1862, consisted of the aforesaid two portions, namely Mela and Kizha, respectively. So what have been granted are defined portions in two different villages. But extents of the two padugais are not given. It is also relevant to quote the following observations made in Karumbavira Vanniar (supra), as the said observations have also been referred and relied by the Tribunal. This was because both the parties relied it for gathering facts, in the absence of proper evidence in the present case. This reliance was, as it also pertains to the same estate of Raja of Thanjavur with reference to this land itself which is in dispute though was not between the same party with a different question raised. The observations are: "It is in evidence that as early as the year 1829 there were two areas, Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, the former formed part of Rajagiri Village and the latter of Papanasam Village. Evidently, both these portions, although there was no geographical contiguity, were designated as Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai at the time when the East India Co., took over the village and later granted it to the heirs of the last of Rajahs of Tanjore . . . . It will be plain from what we have stated above, that both before and immediately after the grant of the year 1862, the two parts of the present Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai were attached to different taraf villages and could have only formed part of those villages . . . . This will show that there was no such distinct village of that name, though there were two areas designed as Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, which perhaps for convenience was referred to as Aryapuram Thattimal at the time of the grant. . . . We, therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Subordinate Judge as well as by the Tribunal that the grant was of two separate bits of land lying in two different Taraf villages and that it was now the year 1919 that they were amalgamated to form what is now known as No. 5, Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai village." Hence, the Tribunal held that what were granted in 1862 were two distinct portions of land in two different taraf villages. It set aside the finding of the Settlement Officer by holding: ". . . The learned Settlement Officer is not quite correct when he says that the evidence available indicates that the grant was of a specified extent of lands only. Admittedly the extents are not mentioned in the grant....." The said earlier decision records that the survey numbers of Kizha are 1 to 56 and of mela are 57 to 68 though are separated by a mile but they formed one block. The grant thus is of two parts of two villages. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer and also the notification under Act No. 30 of 1963 and held that the said two parts were compendiously known then as Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai and is a 'part village inam estate'. Aggrieved by this, the present appellants filed revision before the High Court.
(3.) Appellants submitted before the High Court, in the absence of original grants, on the residuary evidence specially on the fact as recorded in Karumbavira Vanniar (supra) to which both parties relies, expresses the grant to be only in terms of acreages or cawnies and, therefore, it cannot be deemed to be a 'part village inam estate'. The submission, in fact, was in terms of the language of Explanation 1 (b) of Section 2 (11) of Act No. 26 of 1963. On the other hand, submission for the respondents was that it is established by the evidence that the grant was of a part of the village and was not expressed in acreage or cawnies and thus would be covered by Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2 (11). In order to substantiate that the area of the aforesaid two Mela and Kizha was described in an acreage etc. reliance was placed for the appellant on the following observations in Karumbavira Vanniar (supra); "This position is made clear from the paimash accounts and the subsequent surveys. Mala Thattimal, which till 1919 formed part of Rajagiri village, covered as we said an extent of 26-21 acres. In the Paimash accounts of the year 1829 the area was designated by Nos. 1272 to 1302. In the survey of the year 1886 the area was represented by S. No. 11 of Rajagiri. In the land register of the year 1919, the area was given Nos. 45 to 49 in the newly formed No. 5, Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai . . . Now, coming to Kizha Thattimal, which covered on area of 267-44 acres they were represented Nos. 335 to 614 in the Paimash account of the Taraf Village of Papanasam. In the survey of 1886 the corresponding numbers were S. Nos. 1 to 10 in No. 2, Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai. The position continued to be the same in the survey of 1921. But in the Record of Rights Register, they have been given S. Nos. 1 to 56 in No. 5, Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai." The reference of the acreage therein was relied. The High Court rejected this submission holding that this collateral references of paimash account and subsequent survey were compiled after the grant, hence it could not be concluded it was so described in the grant itself. It further records that the grant was only of two distinct portions in two different villages wherein there is no specific mention of its extent, hence it would not fall under sub-clause (b) of Explanation 1 of Section 2(11) and so the notification by the Government under the Act No. 30 of 1963 cannot be sustained. The High Court finally concluded, having regard to the definition of minor inam in Section 2 (9) of the Act No. 30 of 1963 read with the definition of a 'part village named estate' in Section 2(11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer and the notification of the Government under Act No. 30 of 1963. It is this judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeals. It is significant that the State Government has not filed any appeal against it. Though it is one of the respondents but has not made any submission either way. It is also not in dispute, the original grant has not been filed and is not on the record.;