Judgment This is a Revision Petition by the State of Madras against an order passed by the District Judge of Madurai setting aside the Order of the District Munsif directing a plaint to be returned for disposal by the Settlement Officer under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed this suit after this Act was passed for a declaration that 2 acres of land in S.No.244, and 1 acre of land in S.No. 215 in the village of Narasingam of the Thirumuhur Devasthanam were his ryoti lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the Government of Madras from in any way interfering with his enjoyment. The plaintiff relied mainly on the fact that he filed a suit for a patta against the Collector in respect of these lands, which was dismissed in the first instance, but decreed by the District Judge of Madurai in A.S. No. 103 of 1927 on 8th December, 1927. The two suit items were admittedly in land registered as tank poromboke. The proprietor of the estate was a Devasthanam The plaintiff relied on the fact that one manager made an assignment to him for which he paid some money and then went out of office. According to the judgment in A.S.No.103 of 1927, the assignment was cancelled by the subsequent manager on the 7th June, 1926. The Deputy Collector dismissed the suit for patta on two grounds: (1) that the lands applied for were not ryoti lands, but tank bed lands, and (2) that the assignment was invalid because it was made by the senior proprietor alone without the consent of the remaining proprietors. As regards the first ground, the District Judge held that there was no doubt that the lands were originally tank bed and were still registered as tank bed in the accounts. He, however, took the view on the footing of some evidence recorded in the suit that the lands were not required for the water spread of the tank and as the karnam examined deposed to some other assignments of tank bed, he decreed the suit for patta. It is however common ground that since that judgment in 1927 these lands have still remained registered in the revenue accounts as tank bed poromboke. It is however common ground that since that judgment in 1927 these lands have still remained registered in the revenue accounts as tank bed poromboke. The plaintiff applied under section 20-A of the Estates Land Act on 22nd April, 1926, for conversion of these two items from tank poromboke to ryoti land. This application, according to the plaint, was rejected by the Collector and an appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the plaint alleges that the plaintiff in April, 1941, applied to the Tahsildar of Madurai Taluk for permission to use the Periyar water for these lands. Permission was refused on the ground that the lands were not classified as ryoti in the Government accounts. Plaintiff then applied on 7th April, 1944, to the Collector of Madurai for recognition of the lands as ryoti on the ground that without such recognition it was not possible for him to get a water permit for raising wet crops on his lands. According to the plaint, this petition was rejected with the observation that the plaintiff could make an application under section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act. He made his application, which, however, was also rejected and a revision petition to the Board of Revenue, according to the plaint, failed. The Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 casts upon all applicants, who consider themselves entitled to a ryotwari patta, to make an application to the Settlement Officer to whom the District Munsif referred the plaintiff. There does not appear to have been any attempt made by the revenue authorities to evict the plaintiff from those lands, i.e., if he has ever cultivated them, a matter open to some doubt,, without his being able to establish his right to take any water. The learned Government Pleader urges that under section 3(c) and (g) of the new Act, “all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder, shall as against the Government cease and determine,” and that every application for a ryotwari patta requires in the first place scrutiny by the Settlement Officer whose order is subject to appeal and revision as provided for by the Act. There is a specific provision in section 3 that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta, if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta. The learned advocate for the respondent argues contra that this is a case in which the plaintiff’s right to a patta has been decreed by a Court and that it is not open to a Settlement Officer, to go behind that decision. This is anticipating the decision of the Settlement Officer, which has to be given judiciously in accordance with the requirements of the Act. There are some difficulties arising on the facts. One of them is that section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act excludes tank beds from the definition of ‘ryoti land’, although there was nothing in law to prevent disused tank bed no longer used as such being granted on patta by land-holders. As it appears to me, the main practical purpose underlying the plaint was to obtain a finding that plaintiff is entitled as of right to these lands as ryoti lands in order to enable him to obtain water. I do not propose to make any comment on the merits, as I am definitely of the opinion that the learned District Judge was not correct when he directed this plaint to be returned to the District Munsif’s Court, Madurai, for disposal according to law. A point of general principle is involved and if this plaint were to be held to be within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts, it would be difficult to exclude from the orbit of their jurisdiction any application which a seeker after a ryotwari patta is obliged to make under the new Act. It is the Settlement Officer in the first instance, who should decide in accordance with the statutory requirements of the new Act whether a person is entitled to a ryotwari patta. I do not think that the Act can be circumvented by a plaint such as this, which is, filed for a declaration that these two survey numbers, in respect of which plaintiff really wants a ryotwari patta under the new Act are ryoti lands. I do not think that the Act can be circumvented by a plaint such as this, which is, filed for a declaration that these two survey numbers, in respect of which plaintiff really wants a ryotwari patta under the new Act are ryoti lands. I do not think that the plaint as framed should be returned for presentation to the Settlement Officer. The plaint is dismissed as not maintainable in a civil Court and plaintiff referred to his remedy by way of an application under section 11 before the Settlement Officer, who will doubtless give the fullest consideration to his case a point of considerable importance being whether the plaintiff has, in fact, himself cultivated these lands since 1923 as he now claims, without any further objection from the revenue authorities. The Revision Petition is allowed with costs throughout. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.