STA/25/2020 of THE TAHSILDAR Vs M/S.SILVERCLOUD ESTATE on 9 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

P.Velmurugan J.

1.1. S.T.A.No.25 of 2020 has been filed by the State, namely, the Tahsildar, Gudalur and the District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division and S.T.A.No.19 of 2021 has been filed by the Secretary of Allur Kodamoola Makkal Nala Munnetra Sangam, Thorapally, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Court), The Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam in C.M.A.No.1 of 2018, reversing the order of the learned Settlement Officer-I / District Revenue Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District in Rc.V.No.14347/2010 (S.R.No.509/2011) dated 12.10.2017.

1.2. S.T.A.No.40 of 2023 has been filed by M/s Silver Cloud Estate represented by the Managing Co-owner E.J.F.Coelho, Gudalur, to set aside the order dated 15.07.2022 in Unnumbered CFR No.2095 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2018 passed by the Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Court), The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are inter-connected, they have been tagged together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals, namely, the Tahsildar & the District Forest Officer, Gudalur (Appellants in STA No.25 of 2020), the Secretary of Allur Kodamoola Makkal Nala Munnetra Sangam, Thorapally (Appellant in STA No.19 of 2021) as well as M/s Silver Cloud Estate (Appellant in STA No.40 of 2023) will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the State’, ‘the Objector’ and ‘the Claimant’ in this judgment. FACTUAL MATRIX:

3.1. The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Act 24 of 1969) came into force with effect from 27.11.1974 and ryotwari settlement proceedings commenced in an extent of 80087.74 acres of Janmam Estate Lands in Gudalur Division. Survey and enquiry process were taken up by the Settlement Authorities in the Janmam Estate lands. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.367-375 of 1977 dated 18.08.1999 dismissing the civil appeals filed by major estates and granting liberty to the appellants therein to challenge if any adverse order passed against them by the State Government under Section 9 or Section 17 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and also the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.242 of 1988 and W.P. (C)No.408 of 2003 filed by Glenrock Estate and Nilambur Kovilagam on 09.09.2010, the Claimant made the representation dated 03.03.2011 to the

Settlement Officer that Late I.R.Coelho, who was one of the co-owners and Manager of Silver Cloud Estate, had submitted Form-4 application dated 21.05.1975 claiming ryotwari patta for an extent of 1796 acres under Section 8 of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which was personally handed over in the office of the Settlement Officer, Coimbatore on 22.05.1975 and the office of the Settlement Officer, Coimbatore acknowledged receipt of the said application. The Claimant also submitted a copy of Form-4 application dated 21.05.1975 claimed to have been submitted to the Settlement Officer, Coimbatore and the copy of letter No.Ldis 11002/2000/D2 dated. 21.12.2000, which had been addressed to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram by the Director of Survey and Settlement along with the representation letter, in which the Claimant sought patta for an estate of 1749.73 acres in old Survey Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 and 197 of Gudalur Village. The Director of Survey and Settlement had also directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram to take suitable action strictly in accordance with law and as per direction of the Supreme Court of India.

3.2. The representation letter dated 18.10.2010 was received in the office of the Settlement Officer, Gudalur and numbered as Re.V.No.14347/2010 under S.R.No509/2011 and admitted for enquiry. The Claimant filed the proof affidavit stating that till the year 1943, the Silver Cloud Estate properties were made up of the Estates known as (1) Kalliad Estate (2) Pancraig Estate and (3)

Thorapally Estate and had been leased by Nilambur Kovilagam to the predecessors in title vide lease deeds dated 15th December, 1858 and 29th July, 1962 and cultivated with tea, coffee and rubber. By purchase of the leasehold rights from the lessees of the Nilambur Kovilagam, the partnership firm known as ‘Hajee Abdul Rahman Hajee Fakeer Mohammed Sait’ and Sons of Ootacamund became the Assignee of the leasehold rights of the said estates. Subsequently, under the registered lease deed dated 31st December, 1912 registered as Doc.No.7/1913 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Gudalur, the Rajah of Nilambur had renewed the lease of the said estates in favour of the said partnership firm viz. Hajee Abdul Rahman Hajee Fakeer Mohammed Sait and Sons for a further term of 48 years from the date of the said lease viz. 31st December, 1912. Since the leasehold rights in respect of the said estates were sold in public action by the Official Assignee of Madras to the partnership firm ‘Silver Cloud Estates’, the Official Assignee of Madras had executed a registered conveyance in favour of the said partnership firm by its Managing Partner O.A.PM.Ar.Arunachalam Chettiar on 7th January, 1944, which conveyance had been registered as Doc.No.2/1944 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Godalur. Thereafter, the father of the Claimant had obtained the assignment under the conveyance dated 27.06.1951 executed by the said partnership firm ‘Silver Cloud Estates’ represented by the Managing Partner Mr.O.A.PR.M.Arunachalam Chettiar, which conveyance has been registered as

Doc.No.759/1951 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Ootacamund.

3.3. In the meanwhile, one of the Co-owners and Manager of Silver Cloud Estates, under the Application dated 21st May, 1975 submitted in Form-4, applied to the Settlement Offer for the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 in respect of Silver Cloud Estate properties by submitting the full details and particulars of the properties of Silver Cloud Estate for the grant of ryotwari patta as prescribed under Form-4. The application was sent through a messenger from Gudalur and served on the Settlement Officer at Coimbatore on 22.05.1975. Although the application dated 21st May, 1975 for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act & Rule 8(1) of the Rules was submitted to the Settlement Officer on 22.05.1975, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Claimant could take follow up action on account of the pendency of the W.P.No.4186 of 1974 before the Hon'ble High Court and Civil Appeal No.1344 of 1976 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with interim order of stay, which was ultimately disposed of only on 9th September, 2010. It is only thereafter the Settlement Officer has taken up the case for enquiry. Even when the Claimant’s father took the leasehold rights under the registered sale deed dated 27.06.1951, major portion of the said Estate properties were cultivated with tea, coffee and rubber plantations. Subsequently, the properties were developed by extending cultivation of coffee and cardamom in the remaining area and also by replacing

the rubber plantation area with coffee and cardamom. Late LR.Coelho, by way of abundant caution, in the event of losing the legal battle initiated by him against the Government, did not want to lose the benefits of the Act, had also applied on behalf of the family members who are Janmis/Cultivation to the Settlement Officer for the grant of ryotwari Patta under Section 8 of the Act on 21st May, 1975 by submitting the necessary application under Form No.4 as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1974 within the period of six months stipulated under the Act from the appointed date which period was expiring on 27th May 1975.

3.4. After the demise of I.R.Coelho, the Claimant took charge of the properties as Co-owner/Manager and has been managing and cultivating the properties along with the family members since 15.09.1990. No portion of the properties is made up of forest area and the entire area was in fact planted with tea, coffee and cardamom from the year 1960 and cultivated as such by the claimant’s late father. Further, the Notification issued by the Settlement Officer in the Nilgiris District Gazette dated 11th August, 2011 also shows that the Settlement Officer has declared only portions of three survey numbers belonging to Silver Cloud Estates properties as forest area, as detailed below:- Village R.S.No. Total Extent Extent declared as forest Gudalur 750 24.46 acres 23.36 acres 813/1 46.11 acres 35.22 acres

831/2 8.77 acres 2.35 acres Total 60.93 acres

The corresponding old survey number for the above re-survey number is 13A and 13/3A. Therefore, out of the total extent of 1766.83 acres forming Silver Cloud Estates properties in Gudalur Village, when only an extent of 60.93 acres is said to be Forest and declared as such, the Claimant is entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act in respect of the balance extent of 1705.90 acres in respect of the survey numbers where cultivations were done by the family members ever since the date of leasehold rights conferred under the sale deed dated 27.06.1951 in favour of their late father. Therefore, the Claimant had complied with the requirements laid down under Section 8 of the Act for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the entire Silver Cloud Estates Properties at least since the year 1960 as explained above.

3.5. It was also claimed that the Claimant’s mother Martha Anjeline Coelho, who was a Janmi/Cultivator of 250.67 acres of tea and coffee and the janmam rights of which she had purchased under the registered sale deed dated 05.11.1966 executed by the Joint Receiver of Nilambur Kovilagam and above referred to, died intestate at Mangalore on 24th September, 1981 leaving behind the following sons and daughters.

1) Adeline Mary Pladade Saldanha

2) Robert Isidore Coelha by L.Rs

i) Diana Beatrice Coelho

ii) Gail Maris Grace Coelho

iii) Cermen Alice Marthe Coelho

iv) Rohn Gregory Frederick Cphelo

v) Sarah Michelle Coelho

3) Gilbert Vitus Coelho

4) Albert Joseph Alovsious Coelho

5) Ethelbert Joseph Francies Coelho

6) Celine Moira Justin Coelho

7) Maria Rowena Coelho

8) Miriam Phillipina Josephhine Coelho who are now jointly cultivating and in possession and enjoyment of the said tea and coffee area and they are now entitled to the ryotwari patta in respect of the said extent of 250.67 acres. Likewise, the eldest brother I.R.Coelho had died on 7th September, 1990 leaving behind the following heirs and legal representatives,

i) Diana Beatrice Coelho

ii) Gail Maris Grace Coelho

iii) Cermen Alice Marthe Coelho

iv) Rohn Gregory Frederick Cphelo

v) Sarah Michelle Coelho who are his widow and children being the Janmis in possession and enjoyment of the tea and coffee area forming part of Silver Cloud Estates properties as described thereunder and they are entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the said extents.

3.6. The Claimant further stated that the records pertaining to payments of revenue assessments, agricultural income tax etc., and the Estate management records maintained in the Estate office at Silver Cloud Estate Tea

Factory premises were destroyed by fire on account of short circuit in the electricity supply on 18th November, 1999 and in the said fire, the entire factory premises, machineries, stores as well as all the records maintained in the above office from the year 1951 were destroyed. In this regard, the Claimant produced the xerox copy of the F.I.R.No.484/99 dated 18.11.1999 issued by the Gudalur Police in the matter which speaks for itself. However, the copy of application dated 21.05.1975 now produced was in the file entrusted to their Advocate at Supreme Court, who had filed the Civil Appeal No.1344/1976 above referred to, which file he returned to us only after the disposal of the said appeal on 9th September, 2016. Hence, the Claimant produced the following documents in support of their claim for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act:-

1. Copy of the lease deed Doc.No.7/1913 dated 31.12.1912

2. Copy of the conveyance executed Doc.No.2/1944 dated 24.12.1943

3. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.759/1951 dated 27.06.1951

4. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.513/1966 dated 05.11.1966

5. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.514/1966 dated 05.11.1966

6. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.515/1966 dated 05.11.1966

7. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.516/1966 dated 05.11.1966

8. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.517/1966 dated 05.11.1966

9. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.518/1966 dated 05.11.1966

10. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.519/1966 dated 05.11.1966

11. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.520/1966 dated 05.11.1966

12. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.521/1966 dated 05.11.1966

13. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.365/1966 dated 14.07.1966

14. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.245/1966 dated 17.05.1966

15. Copy of the sale deed Doc.No.513/1966 dated 15.10.1968

16. Copy of application submitted to the Settlement Officer dated

21.05.1975

17. Xerox copies of the Report submitted by the expert committee for Tamil Nadu constituted for identification of forest etc., in

G.O.Ms.No.15 Environment & Forests dated 20 Jan 1997 as ordered by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 202/95 on 12.12.1995

18. Nilgiris District Gazette copies dated 11.08.2011

19. Xerox copies of FIR No.484/99 dated 18.11.1999

20. Xerox copies of writ petition No.4386/1974 dated 23.09.1976

21. Xerox copies of Writ petition (Civil) No.242/1988, Appeal No.1344 and 1345 of 1975 dated 09.09.2010.

3.7. As set out above, even by the year 1960, the entire Silver Cloud Estates Properties were cultivated with tea, coffee and cardamom and the cultivation by the family members has been continued without any break all these years and thus fully complied with the requirements for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 to the Janmies/Cultivators as detailed thereunder.

4. The District Forest Officer, Gudalur filed his objection stating that it is true that an extent of 60.93 acres of forested area in the said estate was declared as forest under Section 53 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 and handed over to the Department. As per the direction issued in I.A.No.418/1999 in W.P.2102/95 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no patta shall be granted in respect of any forest nor shall any encroachment be regularized. As such, any area combining forest cover found in excess of the above said extent that was already declared under Section 53 of the Act 24/1969 must be excluded and be handed over to the Department for further action to declare the same as Forest under the relevant Acts.

5. The Tahsildar, Gudalur also filed his objection stating that the application filed by the Claimant is not maintainable if it is not preferred within the limitation period laid down in Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969. When the Claimant filed the application under Section 8, it is for the Claimant to prove that the same was filed within the time specified for filing such application as per the Act. In respect of the lands coming under the purview of Section 17 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act which deals with the plantation lease, there is no provision for the issue of ryotwari patta. The claimant should produce evidence to establish that the subject lands do not come under the purview of Section 17. It is also obligatory on the part of the claimant to prove that the alleged purchases of Janmam rights was well within the period envisaged. It was also stated that major portion of the lands in question are planted with tea, coffee, pepper, cardamom and silver oak trees and the age of the above crops is approximately hundred years. There is a tea factory, residential home and labour quarters. The land in question is registered as "NILUVAI" in revenue records and land revenue has not been collected for the last three years. As per the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer/Settlement Officer's R.CV.No.370/2011 dated 03.08.2011, an extent of 60.93 acres of lands were declared as forest under Section 53 of Gudalur Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969. It was also stated that approximately 120 families belonging to Scheduled Tribes (i.e. Paniyas, Kurumbas and Kattu Naikkas) are living and there is a Primary School building maintained by Panchayat Union for tribal children in survey number 882/1 of Gudalur-2 Village. As per the Field Measurement Book (FMB), Survey Nos.757 and 804 of Gudalur Village are sub divided and detailed as road and Survey Nos.939, 959, 966, 967, 971/2 and 972 of the village are sub divided and detailed as water courses. The old Survey Nos.13 and 192 of Gudalur Village are notified under Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949.

6. The Objector-Sangam also filed their representation, on the strength of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12505 of 2013 dated 19.02.2014, before the Settlement Officer objecting for the issuance of ryotwari patta to the Claimant, on the ground that the members of the said sangam have constructed houses and having cultivable lands in Survey Nos.13,179,187,188,192 of Gudalur Village. However, without producing any document or evidence to prove that the subject land had been cultivated by them during the relevant period 1966 to 1969 and that they had filed the application in Form-4 within the stipulated time under Rule 8(1) seeking for ryotwari patta, they filed the xerox copies of receipts such as payments of electricity charge, telephone bills, ration cards, I.D cards, house tax receipts in support of their claim.

7. The Claimant filed a reply dated 20.09.2017 against the affidavits filed by the members of the said Sangan stating that the Objector cannot be a claimant at all so far as Silver Cloud Estates properties situate in Gudalur are concerned, since the Claimant applied for the grant of ryotwari patta to the Settlement Officer by application dated 21.05.1975 in respect of an extent of 1763.13 acres in the Gudalur Village collectively called as "Silver Cloud Estates", the details of extents have been fully furnished in Ex.A16 application, which was received by the Settlement Officer on 22.05.1975. The application of the co-owners has been pending from 22.05.1975 and enquiry had commenced in the said application since 21.02.2012 and the enquiry was going on since then on various dates. However, when the matter was posted for orders after completion of enquiry on 08.08.2017, the above representation by the self- styled claimants viz. Allur Kodamoola Makkal Munnetra Nala Sangam appears to have been sent by registered post to the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer's Office had received the same only on 29.08.2017. No copy of the said petition has been sent by the said sangam to the Silver Cloud Estates Owners. From the copy of the petition furnished by the Settlement Officer to the Claimant, it is seen that the above petition has been filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C., which is applicable only for filing petitions for appointment of Court Commissioner before the competent Civil Court. The Settlement Officer is not a Court and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act before the Settlement Officer. Further, neither under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969 nor the Rules framed thereunder, the Settlement Officer has any power to appoint any Commissioner to conduct local investigation of S.Nos.13,179,187,188,192 of Gudalur Village. The Sangam comes into picture only as objectors after the notice in Form 6 was published by the Settlement Officer calling for objection, if any, for the grant of ryotwari patta to the owners of Silver Cloud Estate and the notice was published as per Rule 8(5) of the Janmam Rules. The scope of any objection filed before the Settlement Officer in Form-6 notice is very limited and the Settlement Officer has merely to enquire into those objections by giving necessary opportunity to the objectors to make their submissions by producing any proof in support of those objections. In this case, the Settlement Officer has already given necessary opportunity to the objector to make their submissions and to produce the records/proof in support of their objections and it is only after completion of the said procedure, the Settlement Officer has heard arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the Claimants as well as the Special Government Pleader representing the State Government and its Officers. It is only thereafter on 08.08.2017 the Settlement Officer had reserved for orders on the application of the co-owners of Silver Cloud Estates. While that being the factual position, there is no question of the Sangam filing the above petition on 29.08.2017 for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a local investigation by wrongly calling themselves as claimants. If the Sangam was a claimant for the grant of ryotwari patta, it ought to have filed the necessary application either under Section 8 or S.9 or S.10 of the Act on or before 27.05.1975. No such application has been filed by the Sangam or any of its members. In fact, the alleged Sangam was not in existence in the year 1975 and therefore could not have laid the claim at all. The subject lands were inspected by the Settlement Officer along with the Tahsildar, Gudalur on 18.09.2017 as per the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the order in W.P.No.12505/2013 dated 19.02.2014. Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 defines that the application for ryotwari patta under Sections 8, 9 or 10 of the Act ought to have been submitted within six months from the appointed day, namely, six months from 27.11.1974. Further, while claiming ryotwari patta in respect of the janman land, it has to be proved that such land was being cultivated by the claimant or their predecessors during the relevant period 1966-1969. The Sangam or their members have not filed any evidence to prove that applications in Form-4 for issue of ryotwari patta for the subject land were filed within the period of limitation contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules and there is no evidence on record to show that the subject lands claimed by the members of the Sangam were cultivated by them or by their family or predecessors during the relevant period 1966-1969 as required under Sections 8, 9 or 10 of the Act. Therefore, the objections raised by the members of the Sangam were not legally proved with supporting documents during the course of enquiry, which lasted for four long years beyond the period of limitation fixed by the High Court in W.P.No.12505 of 2013 dated 19.02.2014.

8. The Settlement Officer/District Revenue Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, The Nilgiris, considering the above pleadings and on going through the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claim of the Claimant for the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969 for an extent of 1705.90 acres comprised in Old Survey Nos.13,179,187,188,192 of Gudalur Village, under Section 12(1) of the Act 24/1969, vide order dated 12.10.2017, holding as follows:- “The Allur Kodamoola Makkal Munnetra Nala Sangam and the members of the said sangam raised objection against the issue of ryotwari patta to Silver Cloud Estate and has filed Writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai. The enquiry in respect of the Allur Kodamoola Makkal Munnetra Nala Sangam has been taken up as per the direction of High Court order in W.P.No.12505/2013 dated 19.03.2014. All the evidences adduced by way of oral and records filed on behalf of the members of the said sangam were perused and the arguments advanced by the counsels (sic) of the members of the said sangam were also heard. The objection raised by the members of the said sangam is not sustainable and not maintainable. No records or evidences are produced by the members of the said sangam to establish their claim over the subject land under any of the provisions of the Janmam Estate Act 24/69 and no application claiming patta was also submitted by the members of the said sangam within the period of limitation contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estate Rules 1974. Therefore the objection raised by the members of the said sangam is dismissed. The petitioner silver cloud estates has claimed ryotwari patta for an extent of 1766.83 acres under Section 8 of the Act. Application for grant of ryotwari patta in any portion of a Janmam Estate Lands shall be presented within the period of limitation as contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974. Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rule 1974 reads as follows. "Enquiry into claim under Sections 8, 9 or 10: Every application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any land under Sections 8, 9 or 10 shall be in Form no.4 and shall be either presented in person or sent by registered post to the settlement officer within six months from the appointed day". The appointed day notified under sub section 4 of section 1 of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwati) Act 24/1969, was 27.11.1974. As such application for claim of ryotwari patta under Sections 8, 9 or 10 of the Act ought to have been filed within six months from the appointed day 27.11.1974.” Section 8 "The janmi shall with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all lands proved to have been cultivated by the janmi himself, or by the members of his tarwad, tavazhi, illom or family or by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June 1969. The petitioner silver cloud estate in their application dated 25.09.1999 filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram with a copy to the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai has requested to grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969. But no Form-4 application was submitted along with the above application. In the meantime the Co-owner Silver cloud estate in his letter dated 03.03.2011 has stated that the Form-4 application dated 21.05.1975 had been filed for the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969 and has filed a copy of form-4 application along with a receipt as evidence for having submitted the form-4 application on 22.05.1975. But no such form-4 application is available in the office of the Settlement Officer, Janmam Lands, Gudalur to establish the claim of the petitioner that form-4 application had been filed within the period of limitation required under Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1974. In this case the petitioner has not proved the fact that form 4 application for the claim of ryotwari patta under Rule 8(1) of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 had been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore the claim of the petitioner M/s.Silver Cloud Estate for the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969 for an extent of 1705.90 acres comprised in Old S.Nos.13,179,187,188,192 of Gudalur Village of Gudalur Taluk is rejected under Section 12(1) of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969.”

9. Aggrieved thereby, the Claimant filed an appeal under Section 12(3) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 (Act 24/1969) before the Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal and the District Judge of The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in C.M.A.No.1 of 2018 along with I.A.No.255 of 2018 under Order XLI, Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC for producing the certified xerox copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Settlement Officer in W.P.No.12505 of 2013 in the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal, on considering the grounds and the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:-

“1. Whether this Tribunal (District Court) is empowered to entertain this CMA after the introduction of National Green Tribunal Act 2010?

2. Whether I.A.No.255/2018 filed U/o. 41, Rule 27 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC is to be allowed?

3. Whether the claim of Ryotwari patta by the claimant u/s. 8 of the Act is barred by limitation or not?

4. Whether claimant Silver Cloud Estate is a janmi as per the Act?

5. Whether the claimant had been cultivating the land for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before 1st day of June 1969?

6. Whether the objection raised by the 3rd respondent is acceptable?

7. Whether the 3rd respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings?

8. Whether the application dated 25.09.1999 alleged to have been filed by the claimant is FORM No.4 application?

9. Whether the application dated 21.05.1975 is a valid Form No.4 application?

10. Whether the land on which the claim of ryotwari patta made are Sec.17 lands or covered under the provisions of TNPPF Act 1949 as argued by the learned Special Government Pleader?

11. Whether the claimant is entitled for ryotwari patta for an extent of 1705.90 acres described in the schedule comprised in Old S.Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 and 192 of Gudalur Village?

12. Whether the claimant is entitled for ryotwari patta to an extent of 60.93 acres declared as Forest U/s. 53 of the Act?

13. Whether the order in Rc.V.No.14347/2010 S.R.No.

509/2011 dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer-1/District Revenue Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Gudalur is liable to be set aside?

14. Whether the CMA has to be allowed?”

10. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials, while ordering I.A.No.255 of 2018 and taking on file the certified copy of counter affidavit filed by the Settlement Officer, Janmam Lands, Gudalur in W.P.No.12505 of 2013 on the file of this Court as Ex.No.22, allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal in part vide judgment and decree dated 05.06.2020, holding as follows:- “i). The order of the Settlement Officer-1/District Revenue Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Gudalur passed in Rc.V No. 14347/2010 S.R.No.509/2011 dated 12.10.2017 is set aside. ii). The 1st respondent/Tahsildar, Gudalur and the authorities concerned are hereby directed to issue ryotwari patta to the claimant M/s. Silver Cloud Estate, Gudalur to an extent of 1705.90 acres [Total extent 1766.83 acres (less) extent of land declared as forest 60.93 acres) of land comprised in old S.No. 13,179,187,188 and 192 of Gudalur Village as detailed in the impugned order and in the FORM No.4 Application dated 21.05.1975 (received by the Settlement Officer on 22.05.1975) within two months from today. iii). The CMA is dismissed with regard to the claim of ryotwari patta to an extent of 60.93 acres comprised in Old No.13A and 13/3A, R.S. No. 750, 813/1 and 813/2 of Gudalur Village which was declared as "Forest" U/s.53 of the Act. iv). Since the claimant had filed application in FORM

No.4 within period of limitation prescribed in the Act, i.e. on 21.05.1975 (Received Settlement Officer on 22.05.1975) including this 60.93 acres also, the claimant can pursue the same for this 60.93 acres subject to the result of W.P.No.33162/18 pending on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Madras and further legal proceedings, if any, ended in his favour. v). No cost.”

11. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed S.T.A.No.25 of 2020 before this Court. Since the objections raised by the Objector Sangam were rejected by the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, the Objector has filed the S.T.A.No.19 of 2021 before this Court. However, after the said judgment and decree, the Claimant filed a petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., before the Tribunal to direct the Tahsildar, Gudalur to grant ryotwari patta in respect of 60.93 acres of land described in the schedule to the petition and to direct the District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division to dismantle the constructions erected in the said extent forthwith. The Tribunal, taking the said petition in Unnumbered CFR No.2095 of 2021 in CMA No.1 of 2018, has rejected the request of the Claimant with liberty to agitate the grievance either before the Settlement Officer or before this Court in W.P.No.33162 of 2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Claimant has filed the S.T.A.No.40 of 2023 before this Court.

CONTENTIONS:

12. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is based on assumptions, presumptions and surmises and is liable to be set aside, as it failed to note that the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the Claimant under Section 12(3) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 (for short, ‘the Act’) is barred by limitation and has not been filed within the statutory period of three months provided under the Act for filing an appeal over the order of the Settlement Officer. The Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant is entitled for ryotwari patta over the land to an extent of 1705.90 acres comprised in Old S.Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 and 192 of Gudalur Village. The Claimant is referred to as Silver Cloud Estates, which is neither a proprietorship concern nor private limited company or a partnership firm. The learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the extent of 1705.90 acres represent the lands held by several members of ‘Coelho Family’ in their individual names by registered conveyance deeds and these lands cannot be claimed as the land belonging to Silver Cloud Estate and as such, Silver Cloud Estate would not be entitled to grant of ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act. The Tribunal erred in not noting that the Claimant has failed to prove the factum of cultivation for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June 1969 by producing Estate management records, agricultural income tax records, records pertaining to payment of revenue assessments, Coffee Board Certificates, Tea Board Certificates etc., as necessitated under the Act and hence not entitled to the patta under Section 8 of the Act. Even in Exihibit Nos.4 to 14, the sale deeds under which the subject lands were said to have been purchased by the Claimant, it is clearly mentioned that the said lands are forest lands notified under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the MPPF Act, 1949) and permission for selling those lands were obtained from the District Committee under Section 3 of MPPF Act, 1949 vide proceedings of the District Collector in RF(76)19512/66 dated 06.08.1966. The said Act prohibits taking up of any non- forest activity notified under the Act except under the permission of the Committee constituted under the Act headed by the District Collector. Thus, in respect of the entire 1765.83 acres of land which were reportedly developed as tea garden, no permission was granted by the District Committee under the MPPF Act, 1949, which is mandatory for cutting the trees in the forest and plantation of other crops. As such the conclusion of the Tribunal that in the year 1966 itself there were tea gardens as per Exhibit Nos.3 to 15 (Purchase deeds) is not correct and no proof of cultivation prior to 3 years from 01.06.1969 was produced either before the Settlement Officer or before the Tribunal. Hence the findings of the Tribunal that the Claimant was cultivating the lands prior to 01.06.1969 was without any evidence.

13. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that even assuming that the Claimant had cultivated the lands with Tea, Coffee and Cardamom, the Claimant will fall under the category of plantation lessees under Section 17 of the Act and there is no provision for issuing ryotwari patta in respect of the lands covered under Section 17 of the said Act. The Tribunal failed to note that the Claimant did not file any application for grant of patta in Form-4 before the Settlement Officer within the stipulated time of six months from the appointed date i.e. 27.11.1974, as prescribed under Rule 8(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1974. As per Rules 25(1) and 25(2) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1974, the limitation period prescribed under the Act for filing of application, appeal and revision petition is mandatory and the applications/petitions preferred after the period of limitation shall not be entertained even if the party adduces sufficient cause for the delay and the same shall be dismissed although limitation is not taken as a defence. The Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned judgment based on xerox copies of the documents filed by the Claimant as evidence, when it is well settled law that xerox copies are not admissible in evidence. The Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Claimant had submitted application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of 1766.83 acres of lands in S.Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 and 192 of Gudalur village in Form no.4 under Section 8 of the Act on 21.05.1975, which was received by the Settlement office on 22.05.1975, based on a Copy of document marked by the respondent herein as Ex.No.16. The said document was not attested by any witness to prove the execution of the same, and when the existence of the said document is disputed by the State, the Tribunal proceeded to admit the same based on the solitary evidence of the Claimant with regard to the execution of the document. He would further point out that the Claimant had filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta only on 25.09.1999, much later than the limitation of six months provided under the Act. The said application was not made in accordance with the statutory procedure and was also submitted only to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram and not the Settlement Officer, who is the appropriate authority.

14. Arguing further, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Tribunal failed to note that the subject lands stand notified as Forests under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and is subject to the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. An extent of 60.93 acres of the estate had been declared as Forest under Section 53 of the Act and as such, any area combining forest cover found in excess of the above said extent already declared as forest under Section 53 of the Act, should be excluded while considering the application for patta in order to handover the same to the Forest Department for further action to declare the same as Forest

under the relevant Acts. As per Section 11(a) of the Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of forests. The entire lands in the nature of Forest in Gudalur taluk are subject matter of W.P.(C)No.202/1995 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the following orders have been passed from time to time:

i. In I.A.No.418/99 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered that "in the meantime, no patta with regard to any forest land shall be granted nor any encroachments be regularized."

ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inter alia directed that there shall not be any further expansion of the plantations so as to involve encroachment (by way of clearing or otherwise of forest) and later it was clarified that the said direction will apply to the Janmam lands as well.

iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically ordered that "the order in W.P.No.202/95 will operate and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or State Government or any Court or Tribunal.

iv. A Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court took up field inspections in the estates which have expanded their possession by laying hands on pristine forests including the subject lands herein and submitted detailed reports before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the same, the judgment passed by the Tribunal directing issuance of patta to the Claimant when the subject lands have been notified as Forests, is violative and contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in W.P. (C)No.202/1995.

15. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the claim for ryotwari patta in respect of 60.93 acres of lands declared as forest will be subject to the outcome of the W.P.No.33162 of 2018 filed by the Claimant before this Court. The Settlement Officer after field inspection of the ground reality and identifying that an extent of 60.93 acres in Old S.No.13, corresponding to R.S.Nos.750, 813/1 and 813/2 of Gudalur is Forest, declared 60.93 acres as Forest under Section 53 of the Act 24/1969 and issued notification on 11.08.2011. The Settlement Officer has got suo motu powers to determine whether the land in Janmam Estate is a forest or situated in a Forest. No appeal to the Director of Survey and Settlement or Revision Petition to Commissioner of Land Administration was filed by the Claimant challenging the notification under Section 53 of the Act. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pending W.P. (C)No.202/1995 has ordered that no patta with regard to any forest land shall be granted, the judgment of the Tribunal that the claim for ryotwari patta in respect of 60.93 acres of lands declared as forest will be subject to the outcome of the W.P.No.33162 of 2018, is erroneous. The Tribunal failed to consider the importance of preserving the subject lands, which holds rich biodiversity and forms part of the NILGIRI Biosphere Reserve. The Central Empowered Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that visited the Estates in Gudalur Division including the subject lands, in their supplementary report submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“The region holds rich biodiversity and forms part of the NILGIRI Biosphere Reserve and it is surrounded by important National Parks and sanctuaries such as Bandipur, Mudumalai, Nagarhole, Wayanad Mukurthi. The area is strong hold of the Indian elephant, tiger, leopard, bison, bears, several species of deer, hundreds of species of birds and an astonishing diversity of trees and plants. The forest of the area has been classified as tropical moist evergreen, semi- evergreen, dry deciduous and also dry thorn scrub forest in the Eastern part of the area. There are many area with shoal-grassland type of forest, which hold tropical evergreen forest and are extremely valuable as they form the critical watershed and are rightly called as "water banks" in the Gudalur area". The Tribunal failed to consider the ground reality that perennial streams originate from the above land and it serves as a catchment for Pannier and Punampuzha rivers. It also harbours variety of wild animals besides containing rosewood, miscellaneous jungle wood and profuse regeneration of bamboos thus requiring protection under State and Central mandates keeping in view the ecological significance. The Claimant has not only extended the plantation area to an alarming extent by clearing the natural rain forests over the years, but also allowed encroachments in the land under plantation lease which led to high number of human wildlife conflicts involving human casualty. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General, reiterating the above by filing detailed written submissions, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal filed by the State.

16. Ms.B.Poongkhulali, learned counsel appearing for the Objector would submit that the Objector is an association of Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste persons who have been traditionally living in the mountains of Nilgiris district and their villages Allur, Koodamula and Kaatunayakanpadi. The members constitute over 150 families, belonging to Pettakurumbar, Kaatu kayaker and Paniya (Scheduled tribes) and Setti (Scheduled caste) communities and several other backward communities. These people are the original inhabitants of this area and their ancestors’ concept of land is that it is of public utility. The Nilambur Kovilagam did not interfere with their way of life which included marginal farming, dependance on forest produce. In fact, the Nilambur Kovilagam recognised their inherent right to inhabit and sustain in these lands. Within the subject lands claimed by the Claimant, is the lands inhabited by the Objector members, where houses, school, temples including Bomma thevar, Sivan and Kilavathu Mariamman temples, burial grounds of all the communities, lands under cultivation, etc., are situate and these villages are in Old S.Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 and 192. These families have traditionally been dependent on the forest for produce and sustenance and have also been working as labourers in the estates in the region at various points in time and have been living in these lands since time immemorial. Over the course of time, electricity connection was provided by the Government to these villages with the concurrence of the Forest department and the Government of Tamil Nadu has been undertaking several measures to provide housing for the tribal community and as part of the same, has issued sanction letters to over 50 members for construction of concrete houses in Survey No.882/2. The Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore, in letter dated 10.05.2017, clearly notes that members of the Adivasi communities have been living in these villages even prior to the enactment of the 1969 Act and these lands were declared as private forests under The Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. Claims under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Forest Rights Act, 2006’) are also pending. While so, the Tribunal has completely ignored these issues and allowed the claim of the Claimant for patta over these lands, without seeing that the lands under possession and enjoyment of the people living in these villages, are not under the possession or cultivation of the Claimant and hence no claim could be maintained in respect of these lands, as the Claimant did not fulfil the requirements of Section 8 of the 1969 Act for grant of ryotwari patta as janmi. But the Tribunal has failed to see that the Claimant admittedly did not even possess rights to the said lands as a janmi for a continuous period of three years prior to 01.06.1969 i.e from 01.06.1966, as evident from the following facts in documents forming part of the records.

(i) Sale deed in Doc No. 245 of 1966 dated 17/05/1966 was executed in respect of 17.10 acres in S. No. 188/2 (Exhibit No.14)

(ii) Sale deed in Doc No. 365 of 1966 dated 14.07.1966 was executed for an extent of 233.05 acres. (Exhibit No.13)

(iii) 9 Sale deeds (Exhibits 4 to 12) dated 05.11.1966 for a total of 1512 acres (approx).

(iv) Sale deed in Doc No.720 of 1968 dated 15.10.1968 for a total of 2.82 acres. (Exhibit No.15) Only one sale deed being Doc. 245/1966 which is for an extent of 17.10 acres, was executed on 17.05.1966, i.e before 01.06.1969. Thus, it is clear that the entire extent of the subject lands were not even in possession of the Claimant for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before 01.06.1969.

17. The learned counsel would further submit that a perusal of the description of the lands conveyed vide the above said deeds executed between the representatives of the Nilambur Kovilagam and the Coelho family members would clearly falsify the claim of the Claimant in proof affidavit submitted before the Settlement Officer dated 07.11.2011 that Mr.Gregory Joseph Coelho and other family members that even by the year 1960, the entire silver cloud estate properties were cultivated with tea, coffee and cardamom. Thus it is impossible that the Claimant could have cultivated the said lands as janmis for three continuous agricultural years preceding 01.06.1969 and the evidence under oath that all the lands were cultivated as of the year 1960 itself is patently false. The Tribunal failed to see that the entire testimony of the Claimant lacked credibility as falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus and the convenient claim of the Claimant that documents were destroyed in a fire accident, is not an excuse for not producing documents to prove the claim of cultivation of the subject lands during the relevant time. Even the First Information Report dated 18.11.1999 produced by the Claimant does not even contain details of documents claimed to have been destroyed in the fire. Moreover, proof of cultivation from tea board, coffee board, and returns with statutory authorities ought to have been obtained and produced to support the claim made by the Claimant. The natural vegetation in the subject lands including bamboo trees is clear evidence of the fact that these lands were not cultivated by the Claimant. The Tribunal erred in relying on the statement of Mr.Chandrasekaran in Exhibit No.22 to conclude that "it is very clear that silver cloud estate is in continuous cultivation even prior to 1966, during 1966 to 1969 and even thereafter continuously". The Tribunal failed to see that in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed as Exhibit No. 22, the then Settlement Officer has made a vague statement that M/s Silver Cloud estate has developed the subject land by planting tea, coffee, cardamom and other plantation crops for the past several years. The counter affidavit was filed on 01.07.2013. The relevant period under the Act is 01.06.1966 to 01.06.1969. This statement in the counter affidavit is by no stretch of imagination an admission or evidence that the Claimant had cultivated the

subject lands of about 1700 acres during the relevant period and whether the Claimant cultivated any land for "the past several years" is immaterial and such statement not based on any record, ought not to have been considered as relevant by the Tribunal.

18. Adding further, she would submit that the Tribunal failed to see that the Claimant’s own evidence proves that the subject lands were not developed and erred in blindly relying on an out of context statement made in the year 2013 by the then Settlement Officer without any reference to records or evidence. The Tribunal also erred in reversing the finding of the Settlement Officer that the claim under Form-4 was not submitted within the period of limitation, when it was clearly established that no such record of such Form-4 was available in the office of the Settlement Officer, Janmam lands, Gudalur. The Tribunal failed to see that the alleged Form-4 dated 21.05.1975 cannot be considered as an application submitted by all the alleged Janmis. Form-4 is required to be filed by each of the Janmi claiming patta under Section 8 of the Act and the alleged Form-4 filed by one Mr.I.R.Coelho cannot in any case be valid in respect of others. The claim of the Claimant is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of estoppel, as the suits filed in O.S.Nos.152/1991, 55/1992, 77/1992 by the members of Coelho family against the members of Objector Sangam were dismissed by the competent civil courts after elaborate trial, which attained finality. The Tribunal failed to note that all these suit documents were referred to by the members of the Sangam while filing their proof affidavits before the Settlement Officer and a mere perusal of the said judgements would clearly reveal that competent courts had concluded that the Coelho family members could not prove their title and possession of the suit properties and had in fact averred that the same consisted of forest lands and expensive trees, contrary to the claims in the proof affidavit. Even the report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly demonstrated the existence of Adivasi houses belonging to the members in the suit properties and ought not to have directed the issuance of patta for the said lands on which houses, school and temples were situated as per Section 11 of the 1969 Act. The Tribunal ought to have upheld the objections raised by the members before the Settlement Officer and taken cognizance of the affidavits filed by them, which would clearly demonstrate that the members of Scheduled Tribes and mountadan chetties were living in the subject lands, for which the claim for ryotwari patta had been made, from time immemorial; that the members were paying taxes to the Gudalur municipality without any arrears; that the attempts to evict the members through civil suits filed by the Claimant were all unsuccessful; that the members had produced copies of ration cards, property tax receipts, voter ID cards, electricity bill copies etc., with respect to their houses situated on the said lands.

19. The Tribunal failed to notice that the Tahsildar, in his counter affidavit filed before the Settlement officer, had stated that 120 families belonging to Scheduled Tribes (i.e. Paniyas, Kurumbas and Kattu Naikkas) are living in the subject lands and there is a primary school building maintained by the Panchayat union for tribal children and there are also water courses within the subject lands and Survey Nos.13 and 192 were also notified under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been undertaking several measures to provide housing for the tribal community and as part of the same, has issued sanction letters to over 50 members for construction of concrete houses in Survey No.882/2, which corresponds to the old survey No.13/1A, for which the Tribunal has directed the Tahsildar to issue ryotwari patta to the Claimant. Approvals for electricity connections have also been issued to several houses belonging to members of the Sangam and they have been living in the said houses for several years and are also beneficiaries of government schemes and their right to residence in the said houses cannot be disturbed by way of grant of ryotwari patta to the Claimant. The Tribunal failed to note that there have been proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur dated 26.08.2015, which verified the claims of the members of the Adivasi community in Koodamula village for community rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and resolved that a 225 metre concrete road can be constructed based on their request on lands classified as "Section 17 lands" which form part of the subject lands in the present appeal. As per Resolution No.479 dated 31.07.2015, the Gudalur Municipality recommended that basic amenities should be provided to the members of the Pettakurumbar community based on their request under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Gudalur on 25.08.2015 and the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the Settlement Officer by the Tahsildar during the course of proceedings. The proceedings 3619/2017 dated 10.05.2017 of the Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Range addressed to the District Forest Officer, Gudalaur regarding permission sought by the members of the Adivasi community for electricity connections clearly state that the members of the said community were living there even prior to the enactment of the 1969 Act and that the lands were in fact declared as forests under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 will be applicable to the said lands and these documents ought to have been produced by the District Forest Officer in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer. Since the members of the Sangam are the original residents and inhabitants of the subject lands and hence were necessary parties to the proceedings before the Settlement officer and adjudication of the claims. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the members of the Sangam belong to Schedules Tribes and are illiterate persons, who are both economically and socially backward and there are special laws and schemes to protect these communities and these schemes implemented under these special laws will have to override the interests of large scale commercial enterprises like the Claimant, which has in fact not even fulfilled the basic conditions mandated under Section 8 of the Act for the grant of ryotwari patta. The impugned judgement is completely against the objective and mandate of the 1969 Act, which was meant as a measure of land reforms to ensure that the actual cultivators of the land are granted pattas and the said Act did not envisage the grant of patta for thousands of acres of lands to large scale commercial establishments like the Claimant estate, which have been encroaching on forest lands and interfering with the customary rights of the tribal communities and the disadvantaged sections. A majority of the members of the Sangam would fall under the definition of "forest dwelling scheduled tribes" under the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and as such any issuance of ryotwari patta under the 1969 Act would be subject to the determination of their claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides for right to the forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers to hold and live in forest land under individual or community occupation and also grants rights in or over disputed lands under any nomenclature in any state where the claims are disputed as such the rights of the members of the Sangam in the subject forest lands will override any claim of the Claimant to the issuance of ryotwari patta under the 1969 Act. The Tribunal failed to note that entire lands in the nature of forest in Gudalur Taluk, are subject matter of W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which orders have been passed from time to time. The Tribunal failed to see that the plantation of the Claimant even if the averments are assumed correct, are plantation lands covered under Section 17 of the 1969 Act and therefore the claim of the Claimant was not maintainable under Section 8 of the 1969 Act. The learned counsel for the Objector, reiterating the above, has also filed the detailed written submissions and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

20. Per contra, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant, by way of filing detailed written submissions reiterating the grounds, would submit that originally the Nilambur Kovilagam had leased out the lease hold rights of the janmam lands to the claimant's predecessors in title for cultivation purpose by virtue of lease deeds dated 15.12.1858 and 29.07.1862. Thereafter, under lease deed dated 31.12.1912, the Raja of Nilambur Thacharakavil Manivarma Thirumalpad had renewed the leasehold rights in favour of Hajee Abdul Rahim Hajee Fakeer Mohammed Sait and Sons for a period of 48 years. Further vide conveyance deed dated 24.12.1943, the Official Assignee of Madras sold the lease hold rights of Hajee Abdul Rahim Hajee Fakeer Mohammed Sait and Sons to the Silver Clouds Estates, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner O.A.PR.M. Arunachalam Chettiar. Thereafter under the sale deed dated 27.06.1951, the Claimant’s father Late Mr.G.J Coelho had purchased the lease hold rights of the Silver Cloud Estates properties from the Silver Cloud Estates partnership firm. After the death of G.J Coelho, Mr.I.R Coelho took over the management of Silver Cloud Estates on behalf of all the legal heirs of G.J Coelho. In the year 1966, the Claimant and his family members purchased the janmam rights in respect of the entire 1766.83 acres from the Raja of Nilambur Kovilagam T.N Gopinath Thirumalpad and other Kovilagam members and sale deeds were executed in favour of the legal heirs of deceased G.J Coelho, conveying the Janmam rights vested in the Nilambur Kovilagam in respect of Silver Cloud Estates properties admeasuring 1766.83 acres and as they were already in possession of the Estates as tenants, their tenancy rights got merged with the Janmam rights by virtue of the sale deeds executed in the favour of the legal heirs of G.J Coelho and they had become Janmis of the Silver Cloud Estates properties much before the enactment of the Gudalur Janmam Estates(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 that was brought into force w.e.f. 27.11.1974.

21. In the meanwhile, I.R.Coelho (Late) on 21.05.1975 made an application for the grant of ryotwari patta in Form No.4 to the Settlement Officer under Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 for the entire extent of 1766.83 acres. However, since the validity and the applicability of the Act was challenged by the said I.R.Coelho in W.P.No.4386/1974 before this Court and the same culminated in Civil Appeal No.1344/1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case was disposed only on 09.09.2010. Hence, in the meantime, no action was taken on the application submitted to the Settlement Officer. This being so, some third parties such as the Objector filed W.P.No.12505 of 2013 before this Court and objected to the issuance of ryotwari patta in favour of the Claimant and this Court directed the Settlement Officer to consider the objections while dealing with the Section 8 application vide its order dated 19.02.2014. The Settlement Officer considered the objections and dismissed the same by his order dated 12.10.2017. However, under the same order, he had rejected the application of the Claimant for grant of ryotwari patta on the hyper technical ground that the original applications could not be traced. Therefore, the Claimant and other co-owners filed an appeal before the Tribunal and though the Tribunal set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and directed the Tahsildar and connected authorities to issue ryotwari patta to the Claimant to an extent of 1705.90 acre, with regard to the remaining 60.93 acres of land comprised in Old S.Nos.13A and 13/3A, R.S.Nos.750, 813/1 and 813/2 of Gudalur Village, the claim for ryotwari patta was dismissed for the sole reason that the said land was declared as "forest" under Section 53 of the Act by a notification dated 11.08.2011. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Claimant had filed W.P.No.33162 of 2018 before the High Court challenging the said notification, and the Tribunal held that with regard to this 60.93 acres, the Claimant can pursue the same subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, this Court, by order dated 13.10.2020 in W.P.No.33162 of 2018, has held that since the writ petitioner (Claimant) was similarly placed to the petitioners in W.P.No.27058 of 2011 and batch, the Petitioner was also entitled to the benefit of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27058 of 2011 and batch dated 20.12.2016, more specifically para 31 to 34 therein. In the above mentioned order it is made unequivocally clear that the Tribunal ought to decide the issue of grant of ryotwari patta on its own merits, without being influenced by the notification dated 11.08.2011 declaring the said lands as "forest". Whereas, to the contrary, the Tribunal had solely relied on this notification dated 11.08.2011 to dismiss the Claimant's appeal insofar as this 60.93 acres was concerned. In fact, the Tribunal in the said order dated 05.06.2020 has clearly granted liberty to the Claimant to pursue the grant of ryotwari patta for this 60.93 acres subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Hence, the Tribunal is now duty bound to consider the case of the Claimant for grant of ryotwari patta for the 60.93 acres on its own merits without being influenced by the said notification dated 11.08.2011. However, the Tribunal, on an erroneous application of law, has rejected the application on a hyper technical ground and the same is not countenanced in facts nor in law.

22. The District Forest Officer has highhandedly taken advantage of the fact that the Settlement Officer has declared the said extent of land as forest, and has started construction of buildings in the said extent of land in dispute. Construction work is still under progress despite protests and written objections given by the Co-owners of the Silver Cloud Estates, Gudalur. Though the State and the Objector have filed the appeals challenging the grant of ryotwari patta for the extent of 1705.90 acres, the Claimant did not file any appeal against the said judgment, since the order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 had extended the same relief to the Claimant as that of the Petitioners in W.P.No. 27058 of 2011 and batch, wherein it was explicitly held that either the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal ought to consider the matter of issue of patta without being influenced by the notification dated 11.08.2011. Further, the Tribunal had also expressly granted liberty to the Claimant to approach it in the event of success in the writ petition.

23. In this background, the learned counsel would submit that the order dated 15.07.2022 is liable to be set aside, as the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application at the S.R. stage itself on the ground that no case is made out for re-opening the CMA No.1 of 2018, which is running contrary to the order of this Court dated 13.10.2020 in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 and also to the Tribunal's own order in CMA No.1 of 2018 dated 05.06.2020, wherein the Tribunal has expressly granted liberty to the Claimant to pursue the ryotwari patta for the 60.93 acres subject to the result of the abovementioned writ petition. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the Claimant ought to approach the Settlement Officer for grant of ryotwari patta for this 60.93 acres and the said finding is wholly erroneous and has been made without considering the fact that the Claimant had approached the Settlement Officer for issue of ryotwari patta as early as 21.05.1975 itself, which is within the time limit prescribed under the Statute, which was rejected by the Settlement Officer. As against this rejection the Claimant filed CMA No. 1 of 2018 before the Tribunal. Therefore, no fresh application can be made at this belated stage in light of the limitation prescribed under Rule 8(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974. Such a finding is in direct contradiction to the order of this Court in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 which grants the same protection to the Claimant as was granted to similarly placed persons in W.P.No.27058 of 2011, wherein it is held: "It is hereby clarified that the findings of the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall be on the merits of the cases and without being influenced by the impugned notification in any manner whatsoever."

24. When the abovementioned order in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 and W.P.No.27058 of 2011 in no uncertain terms holds that the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal must pass orders without being influenced by the notification dated 03.08.2011 which was published in the government gazette on 11.08.2011, there is no question of approaching the High Court, since the order in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 has made it clear that the Claimant ought to approach the Tribunal and there is a duty cast on the Tribunal to hear the matter on merits without being influenced by the notification dated 11.08.2011. The impugned order cannot attempt to expand the findings of this Court and direct the Claimant to approach this Court for the issue of ryotwari patta, especially in light of the fact that in the CMA No.1 of 2018, the Tribunal had refused to grant ryotwari patta on the sole ground of the notification notifying the said lands as forest lands. Now that this Court in W.P. No.33162 of 2018 has held that the Tribunal ought to pass orders on merits without being influenced by the notification dated 03.08.2011, the Tribunal, having granted liberty to the Claimant, cannot now contradict its own order and direct the Claimant to approach the Settlement Officer or this Court. On a combined reading of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in CMA No. 1 of 2018 dated 05.06.2020, more specifically para 48(iv) therein, read along with the order of this Court in W.P.No.33162 of 2018 makes it abundantly clear that the Claimant’s only recourse is before the Tribunal. The impugned order also failed to consider that the Government is illegally proceeding to construct buildings in the above mentioned lands despite objections from the Claimant and the pendency of the cases before the Tribunal. The learned counsel also submitted that the Claimant has filed C.M.P.No.2052 of 2025 praying to receive the three documents viz., (i) copy of the letter vide No.L.dis 11002/2000/D2 by the Tahsildar to the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 21.12.2000; (ii) copy of the representation letter RCV No.14347/2010 under S.R.V.No.509/2011 to the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 18.10.2010 and (iii) copy of the representation letter to the Settlement Officer regarding the grant of ryotwari patta dated 03.03.2011, which are vital for adjudication of the appeal filed by the Claimant. The learned counsel further relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

1. Balmadies Plantations Ltd., and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 133

2. N.K.Rajendra Mohan v. Thirvamadi Rubber Company Ltd and others, (2015) 9 SCC 326

3. Kavalappara Kottarathil and Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala & Others, 1960 KLJ 1077

4. Karimbil Kunhikonan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723

5. Manik Majumder and others v. Dipak Kumar Saha, MANU/SC0021/2023

6. Prem Singh & others v. Birbal and others, (2006) 5 SCC 353

7. L R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1

8. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and others in Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024 dated 16.05.2024

9. The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s S.V.Global Mill Limited, 2026 INSC 138. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Claimant by setting aside the impugned order.

25. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the respective learned counsel appearing for the Objector and the Claimant and also perused the materials available on record. DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS:

26. The present batch of appeals concerns the interpretation and application of a special agrarian reform legislation enacted to abolish the Janman Estates and regulate the grant of ryotwari pattas in accordance with the conditions prescribed by statute. Therefore, the grievance of the Claimant for entitlement is entirely statutory and must be established strictly within the four corners of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 and the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974.

27. Section 3 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion

into Ryotwari) Act brought about the statutory vesting of every Janmam Estate in the Government with effect from the appointed day, namely, 27.11.1974, free from all encumbrances. Consequently, any pre-existing proprietary or derivative right claimed by any Janmi, lessee, assignee or transferee stood extinguished except to the limited extent recognised under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act itself. The grant of ryotwari patta is therefore not a continuation of antecedent proprietary rights but a statutory benefit available only to persons who satisfy the requirements prescribed under the said Act.

28. Therefore, the core point for consideration in these appeals is whether the Claimant has established through reliable evidence that the statutory conditions stood satisfied during the relevant period, as recognised by the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and the Rules made thereunder?

29. In this context, Rule 8(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 and Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, which are relevant for consideration in these appeals, are extracted hereunder:-

"Rule 8(1) Enquiry into claim under Sections 8, 9 or 10: Every application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of any land under Sections 8, 9 or 10 shall be in Form No.4 and shall be either presented in person or sent by registered post to the Settlement Officer within six months from the appointed day". Section 8 "The janmi shall with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all lands proved to have been cultivated by the janmi himself, or by the members of his tarwad, tavazhi, illom or family or by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June 1969.”

30. Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act does not confer ryotwari patta upon every person claiming an interest in lands comprised within a Janmam Estate. It extends the statutory benefit only to those persons who satisfy the conditions expressly prescribed therein. Section 8 requires the Claimant to establish entitlement as a Janmi together with the other statutory conditions during the relevant period prescribed by the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act.

31. Now, therefore, we have to see whether the Claimant has established compliance with every statutory requirement for grant of ryotwari patta. In this regard, the Claimant's own pleadings disclose that Gregory Joseph Coelho acquired only the leasehold interest under the deed dated 27.06.1951 and that the lease itself was derived from the earlier 48 years lease executed in 1912. The Janmam rights were acquired only under the sale deeds executed in 1966 and 1968. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act identify the classes of persons who may become entitled to ryotwari patta. However, the substantive entitlement created under those provisions is inseparably linked to the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 8(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules mandates that every application seeking grant of ryotwari patta under Sections 8, 9 or 10 shall be made in Form No.4 and shall be presented either personally or by registered post to the Settlement Officer within six months from the appointed day. The appointed day notified under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwati) Act 24/1969, was 27.11.1974. As such, any application or claim for ryotwari patta under Sections 8, 9 or 10 of the Act ought to have been filed within six months from the appointed day i.e. 27.11.1974. The language employed is mandatory and leaves no discretion either to the applicant or to the statutory authority. The legislative intention becomes even more explicit when Rule 25 is read together with Rule 8. Rule 25(1) directs that every application presented beyond the prescribed period shall be dismissed, irrespective of whether limitation has been specifically pleaded as a defence. Rule 25(2) goes one step further by expressly prohibiting admission of a time-barred application even on the ground that sufficient cause existed for the delay. The Rules, therefore, consciously exclude the application of equitable principles ordinarily available under the Limitation Act.

32. The above statutory scheme is further reinforced by Section 61 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which accords overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over every other law inconsistent therewith. Therefore, the Claimant has to first establish that Form No.4 application was validly presented within six months from the appointed day, as the burden entirely lies upon the Claimant to establish timely presentation of the application. The ryotwari patta under Section 8 is not granted upon proof of antecedent ownership alone. The burden never shifts merely because the Claimant produces copies of private conveyances or asserts long possession. The Claimant may possess documents evidencing certain private rights, yet must satisfy the statutory conditions necessary for the grant of ryotwari patta.

33. The documentary evidence relied upon by the Claimant itself demonstrates that its predecessors originally entered upon the lands as lessees under a long-term lease and not as Janmis. The predecessor-in-interest obtained leasehold rights under the lease deed executed in 1912. The lease expired in 1960. The Claimant has not established how its possession during the intervening period satisfies the statutory requirement of Section 8. A lessee does not become a Janmi merely by virtue of possession. Equally the subsequent purchase of Janmam rights does not automatically satisfy the conditions prescribed under the Act. The Claimant has failed to establish that it possessed the legal character required by Section 8 during the relevant statutory period. Further, Section 8 does not confer ryotwari patta merely because land formed part of the plantation or because the Claimant asserts that agricultural operations were carried on at some point of time. The Claimant has failed to prove that the lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is sought were cultivated by the Janmi himself or through the persons specified in Section 8, for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately preceding the 1st day of June, 1969, as this period is the touchstone against which every claim must be tested. The burden of proving this foundational fact rests entirely upon the Claimant and especially, in a claim covering nearly 1766.83 acres, such proof would ordinarily be expected through contemporaneous revenue records, estate cultivation registers, crop accounts, labour records, inspection reports, survey records or other reliable documentary material in order to establish continuity of cultivation of the entire extent claimed during the statutory period between 15.03.1966 and 14.03.1969.

34. Moreover, Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act requires proof of cultivation and it does not permit cultivation to be presumed from ownership, possession or subsequent development. Though the impugned judgment grants patta over 1705.90 acres, yet the evidence relied upon has not been analysed parcel-wise to determine whether each portion satisfied the statutory requirements. The enquiry mandated by Section 8 is not satisfied by treating the estate as one indivisible unit. However, a careful scrutiny of the very documents relied upon by the Claimant demonstrates that the documentary record is inconsistent with the case now sought to be projected. The first significant document is the lease deed dated 27.06.1951 under which Gregory Joseph Coelho acquired the leasehold interest. The contemporaneous document executed long before the present dispute arose, carries considerable greater evidentiary value than the subsequent assertions made decades later in the proof affidavit. Even the recitals in the sale deeds executed in 1966, by which the Claimant asserts that Janmam rights were purchased, repeatedly describe the subject matter of the conveyance as forest lands, undeveloped portions and lands carrying standing trees and plants. The deeds also record that the area of 1516.63 acres formed part of the undeveloped portion of Silver Cloud Estate and refer to the purchase of Janmam rights over those forest lands. These recitals are significant for two reasons. Firstly, they emanate from the Claimant’s own chain of title. Secondly, they were executed in the period immediately preceding the statutory period relevant under Section 8. The Tribunal has failed to reconcile these contemporaneous recitals while accepting the Claimant’s subsequent assertion that the entire estate had already been planted with tea, coffee and cardamom by 1960. The Claimant has also failed to produce contemporaneous evidence demonstrating cultivation during the relevant statutory period such as revenue assessments, agricultural income-tax records, land revenue records and other contemporaneous public documents obtained from the concerned public authorities in support of its case. Despite sufficient opportunity afforded before the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, no contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing cultivation during the relevant three agricultural years was ever produced by the Claimant.

35. Moreover, we could see that the Tribunal has only relied upon the averments contained in a counter affidavit filed by the Settlement Officer in separate proceedings, since the said counter affidavit was filed on 01.07.2013 decades after the relevant statutory period, which only states that the estate had

developed the lands with plantation crops over the years. In our considered opinion, such a statement cannot constitute proof that the lands were cultivated by the Claimant during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the 1st day of June, 1969, which alone is the enquiry mandated by Section 8. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 8 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, it is mandatory for the Janmi to have cultivated the lands for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately before the 1st day of June, 1969. As per Section 8, the cut-off date is 01.06.1969 and the Janmi should have cultivated the lands for a continuous period of three years before the cut-off date. The Claimant purchased the lands only in November 1966 and therefore it is evident that the Claimant does not satisfy the conditions required for obtaining the ryotwari patta. Since the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act is an abolition statute, it extinguishes pre-existing Janmam rights upon vesting and thereafter creates a limited statutory entitlement to ryotwari patta in favour of persons who satisfy the conditions prescribed under Sections 8, 9 or 10. Therefore, every Claimant seeking the benefit of Section 8 must necessarily succeed on the strength of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, but not merely on the strength of antecedent conveyances or assertions of ownership.

36. We could further see that the Settlement Officer, after considering the entire record, has categorically held that no contemporaneous material established presentation of a valid application within the time prescribed under Rule 8. When the burden of proving timely presentation rests entirely upon the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to discharge that burden by producing primary evidence. However, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s assertion that an application dated 21.05.1975 had been filed, notwithstanding the absence of any acknowledgment, postal receipt, inward register, office endorsement or departmental record evidencing its receipt. The Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the long pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court justified a liberal approach to limitation. This reasoning overlooks that the statutory period prescribed under Rule 8 expired in May, 1975, nearly two years before the interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The stay affected settlement proceedings, but it did not suspend the obligation to present an application within the statutory period. Similarly, Rule 25 expressly prohibits admission of a belated application even upon proof of sufficient cause. Ryotwari patta cannot be granted merely because the Claimant establishes a chain of private conveyances, as the Claimant was further required to establish timely presentation of its application, the legal character contemplated by Section 8 and continuous cultivation during the relevant statutory period. When Section 8 requires proof that the lands were cultivated by the Janmi or through the modes recognised by the statute for a continuous period of three agricultural years immediately preceding the 1st day of June, 1969, the Tribunal failed to render clear findings regarding the evidence relied upon to establish cultivation during the relevant statutory period, the extent actually shown to have been cultivated, how the evidence corresponds to the 1705.90 acres for which patta has been directed or how the statutory requirement was satisfied in respect of each parcel of land. Instead, cultivation appears to have been inferred from the Claimant’s general assertions and subsequent possession. Such an inference cannot substitute for proof of the statutory requirement. Even otherwise, it is not the claim of the Claimant that they filed the application under Section 17 as plantation lessees and their entire claim for grant of ryotwari patta is only on the ground that they filed the application under Section 8 within the limitation period, which claim has not been established through contemporaneous material. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment suffers from errors of law, errors in appreciation of evidence and misapplication of the statutory provisions governing grant of ryotwari patta for an extent of 1705.90 acres in old Survey Nos.13, 179, 187, 188 & 192 of Gudalur Village and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal and District Judge, The Nilgiris in C.M.A.No.1 of 2018 are set aside and S.T.A.No.25 of 2020 filed by the State stands allowed.

37. So far as the appeal filed by the Objector Sangam in S.T.A.No.19 of 2021 is concerned, they also assail the impugned judgment on the ground that within the subject lands claimed by the Claimant, is the lands inhabited by the Objector members, where houses, school, temples, burial grounds of all communities, cultivation lands etc., are situate and these villages are in Old S.Nos.13,179,187,188 and 192 of Gudalur Village and their families have traditionally been dependent on the forest for produce and sustenance and have been living in these lands since time immemorial, falling under the definition of “forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes” and other traditional forest dwellers of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. However, the Tribunal has completely ignored these issues and allowed the claim of the Claimant for patta over these lands, without seeing that the lands under possession and enjoyment of the people living in these villages, are not under the possession or cultivation of the Claimant and hence no claim could be maintained in respect of these lands, as the Claimant did not fulfil either the requirements of Section 8 of the 1969 Act for grant of ryotwari patta or admittedly did not even possess rights to the said lands as a janmi for a continuous period of three agricultural years prior to 01.06.1969. Equally, it is not even the claim of the members of the Objector Sangam that the subject lands have been cultivated by them during the relevant period 1966 to 1969 and that they had filed the application in Form No.4 within the stipulated time as per Rule 8(1) seeking for ryotwari patta and that they have filed the appeal only to the limited extent that their guaranteed rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 are sought to be defeated by the impugned judgment directing the grant of ryotwari patta to the Claimant. Therefore, for the very same reasons and conclusions reached by us in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the S.T.A.No.19 of 2021 stands allowed with a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the dwelling units put up by the eligible forest dwellers/members of the Sangam are not disturbed from the declared forest area.

38. So far as the appeal filed by the Claimant in S.T.A.No.40 of 2023 assailing the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 made in Unnumbered CFR No.2095 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2018 is concerned, the Tribunal has declined the request of the Claimant for grant of ryotwari patta to an extent of 60.93 acres of land comprised in Old S.Nos.13A and 13/3A, R.S.Nos.750, 813/1 and 813/2 of Gudalur Village, for the reason that the said extent had already been notified as ‘Forest’ under Section 53 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 24/1969 as per proceedings of the District Revenue Officer/Settlement Officer dated 11.08.2011. The Claimant, in order to sustain the claim in respect of every parcel of land under Section 8, must independently satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under the

Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and cannot seek for ryotwari patta merely because adjoining lands are claimed or because larger extent of lands are the subject matter of connected proceedings. The burden continued to rest upon the Claimant to establish that the said extent answered the statutory description under Section 8 and was not otherwise excluded from grant of ryotwari patta. As held by us earlier, the Claimant has failed to establish the compliance of the statutory requirements as mandated under Sections 8, 9 or 10 to sustain its claim. Equally there is no quarrel with the ratio laid down in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Claimant, but the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present appeals. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal, upon consideration of the relevant materials, has rightly declined the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of 60.93 acres of land notified as “Forest” to the Claimant. The Claimant has not demonstrated any error of law, perversity in appreciation of evidence or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal proceeds substantially on the assumption that once the Claimant establishes entitlement to ryotwari patta in respect of the remaining lands, the same consequence must necessarily follow in respect of the said 60.93 acres, which assumption is legally untenable. Therefore, we find no grounds made out by the Claimant to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, S.T.A.No.40 of 2023 filed by the Claimant stands dismissed.

39. In the upshot, S.T.A.Nos.25 of 2020 & 19 of 2021 shall stand allowed and S.T.A.No.40 of 2023 shall stand dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, all the connected CMPs are closed. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.VELMURUGAN J.) (K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.) 09-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ss

To

1. The Gudalur Janman Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Court) The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam

2. The Tahsildar Gudalur, Nilgiris District

3. The District Forest Officer Gudalur Division, Gudalur The Nilgiris 643 212

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J. ss Common Judgment in STA Nos. 25 of 2020 etc. 09-10-2026