Chandra Reddy, C.J.- This is an appeal against the Judgment of our learned brother, Veeraswami, J., declining to remove on certiorari an order of the Board of Revenue affirming that of the Director of Settlements who, in his turn, affirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer refusing to grant a ryotwari patta to the appellants under section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. The facts giving rise to this appeal are shortly these. Musalavanodai, which was a part of the Sivagangai Zamindari, was granted on a permanent cowle to the predecesor-in-title of the appellants by Rani Katama Nachiar of Sivaganga on a fixed rental of Rs. 37-2-0 per year. The document recites that this village with wet and dry lands was lying waste for sometime on account of litigation in respect of the Zamindari and that the Rani felt that the estate could not profitably undertake the repair of the tank, which was the source of irrigation to these lands, and, whose bunds were breached, and that, the grantee could repair the bunds and enjoy the lands, wet and dry, on payment of poruppu indicated in that document. Subsequently, the grantee appears to have repaired the irrigation source and brought the lands under cultivation. After the abolition of this estate the appellants invoked section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta for the wet and dry lands comprised in the village. They also sought a similar relief in regard to this tank which measures about 90 acres of land. This request of the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the ground that no ryotwari patta could issue in respect of a tank. This was affirmed by the Director of Settlements whose revisional jurisdiction was invoked by the appellants. The further revision to the Board was unfruitful. The Board of Revenue expressed the view that the tank was not included in the holding and as such any improvement effected to the tank did not clothe the appellants with a right to claim a ryotwari patta in regard thereto. The Board also expressed the opinion that the appellants were entitled only to such rights as were conferred on them under the Abolition Act and that the Abolition Act does not contemplate the issue of a ryotwari patta in respect of the tank. The Board also expressed the opinion that the appellants were entitled only to such rights as were conferred on them under the Abolition Act and that the Abolition Act does not contemplate the issue of a ryotwari patta in respect of the tank. It is to quash this order of the Board of Revenue that the writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed by the aggrieved ryots. Our learned brother Veeraswami, J., concurred in the opinion of the Board of Revenue that the tank was not included in the holding of the appellants and as such section 26 of the Madras Estates Land Act was unavailable to them. It is this conclusion of our learned brother that is assailed before us by Sri Vedantachari. Although Sri Vedantachari argued at some length on this question, he wants us not to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter as it is sufficient for us to dispose of this appeal on the basis of section 3(g) of the Abolition Act read with section 11. We think we can dispose of this appeal on the short ground that section 11, which is the only provision which could be resorted to by the ryots for the issue of a ryotwari patta, does not enable the ryots to obtain a patta in respect of a tank. Section 3(g) recites: "Any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the estate, to any person before the notified date against the principal or any other landholder thereof shall cease and determine, and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such landholder, and every such ‘person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him by or under this Act." This provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the ryots have to seek their rights and remedies within the four corners of the statute. Any rights which are not recognised by the Act, cannot be enforced. And, the only provision which deals with the issue or grant of patta is section 11 of the Act. That section eancts: "11. Any rights which are not recognised by the Act, cannot be enforced. And, the only provision which deals with the issue or grant of patta is section 11 of the Act. That section eancts: "11. Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of- (a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act, and (b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title. Continuously from the 1st day of July , 1939." Since the proviso plays no part in this enquiry it is not necessary to extract it. It is manifest that a patta can issue only in respect of ryoti land, and, it is too much to contend that a tank is ryoti land. "Ryoti land " is defined in the Estates Land Act thus: ‘Ryotiland’ means cultivable land in an estate other than, private land but does not include:- (a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites, and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers; (c) lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists." It is plain from this that a tank is outside the purview of ryoti land. That being so, we can have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of Sri Vedantachari that a ryotwari patta should issue even in respect of a tank. In these circumstances, no exception could be taken to the orders of the Tribunal which negatived the claim of the appellants for the issue of a patta. In our opinion our learned brother Veeraswami, J., has rightly declined to interfere with those orders. In these circumstances, no exception could be taken to the orders of the Tribunal which negatived the claim of the appellants for the issue of a patta. In our opinion our learned brother Veeraswami, J., has rightly declined to interfere with those orders. Sri Vedantachari wants us to observe that our judgment should not stand in the way of his invoking section 19-A of the Abolition Act. We do not think it necessary to add to what our learned brother has already said in this regard. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 150. V.K. ----- Appeal dismissed.