V. Mariaraj vs The District Collector and The Tahsildar

K. Chandru, J.—The writ petition is filed against the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector dated 06.01.2005. The

petitioner filed a representation dated 17.06.2004 before the District Collector stating that in Survey No. 81 described as Kaliaurani the trees

were planted by him. Being a ayacutdars of the Urani, he sought for permission to cut those trees.

The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5663 of 2004. This Court by an order dated 09.03.2004 directed the

District Collector to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 23.01.2001, 30.06.2003 and 13.01.2004 and to pass appropriate orders on

his representation. The District Collector noted that Survey No. 81 in Kaliaurani Kanmai was given to one Theivanai Achi as a pattadar for the

purpose of maintenance by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sivagangai vide his proceedings dated 30.11.1956. The settlement for the Panangudi

(Group) Village started in the year 1958. While doing the settlement work in the Assistant Settlement Officer''s order, there is no record with

reference to the assignment of the Urani in favour of any one. Therefore, whatever order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer can be

considered only as a provisional order.

It is also stated that in the Village accounts Survey No. 81 to the extent of 1.30.5 Hectares is recorded as Kalia Urani Kanmai and as

''Government Poramboke''. Therefore, the District Collector refused to acceede to the request of the petitioner for cutting the trees in the Urani.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by G.O.Ms. No. 1144, Revenue Department dated 07.05.1954 the tenure estates for

Sivaganga Government Taluk was listed and in Serial No. 4(a) Panangudi Village is shown. It is also argued that Kalia Urani was handed over for

private maintenance by the Settlement Officer dated 30.11.1956 and thereafter, the petitioner seems to have purchased from one Chintamani

Chettiar belonging to the Natarajapuram Village who is the Kartha of the family of Subbiya Chettiyar by a sale deed dated 23.01.2001. It is on the

basis of the said sale deed the petitioner claims an exclusive right over the Kanmai and therefore, he claims for a right to cut the trees and also he

claims that he had planted those trees on the bank of the Kanmai.

The transaction referred to by the petitioner has no relevance. Subsequent to the settlement, the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Section 11-A was introduced by Amending Act 2 of 1976. The amending Act Section 2(2) of the Tamil

Nadu Inam Estates, Lease holds and Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975, Section 11-A was

introduced into the 1963 Act. Section 11-A reads as follows:

11-A Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani.:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.

(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Inam

Estates, Lease holds and Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette,

shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which

neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.

In the light of the same, no private person can claim any ownership of any oorani. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner are clearly

unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of 1963 Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Collector does not suffer from any

legal infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.