JUDGMENT: Gokulakrishnan, J.- The appellants numbering 97 are villagers of Thirukandeeswaram near Panruti in South Arcot District. They claim patta to various items of Survey Numbers annexed to the order passed by the Settlement Tahsiidar. There was a suo motu enquiry originally by the Settlement Tahsiidar, Thanjavur, under section 11 of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By order, dated 30th December, 1970, the Settlement Tahsiidar, after enquiry, found that the lands in question viz., S. Nos. 419/2-A, 421 and 419 2-B, are in the use of the villagers and as such, none is entitled to the issue of ryotwari patta under section 7 of the Act. Hence, the Settlement Tahsiidar directed that these lands shall continue to vest with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. As against this order, the first respondent herein filed an appeal in I.A.T.A. No..91 of 1971 before the Inams Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. The appeal was dismissed for default on 26th February, 1974. Exhibit R-19 is the order passed by the Settlement Tahsiidar and Exhibit R-20 is the order passed in the appeal by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for default. 2. It is clear from the facts of the case that pending the appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal, the first respondent herein has moved the Settlement Tahsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry stating that it was withdrawing the appeal pending before the Tribunal. It is also clear from the records that a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar and in that fresh enquiry, patta was directed to be granted in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of the survey numbers which were originally directed to be vested with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. As against this grant of patta, the appellants herein preferred an appeal to the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore. Before the Tribunal, the appellants took up a preliminary objection stating that the Settlement Tahsildar has no powers to rescind the order passed by him as early as 30th December, 1970, and as such, the grant of patta in favour of the first respondent herein for these survey numbers has to be set aside. Before the Tribunal, the appellants took up a preliminary objection stating that the Settlement Tahsildar has no powers to rescind the order passed by him as early as 30th December, 1970, and as such, the grant of patta in favour of the first respondent herein for these survey numbers has to be set aside. This preliminary objection was over-ruled by the Tribunal observing that the second enquiry by the Settlement Tahsildar is not barred by res judicata, that further some of the appellants herein had taken part in the proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar and they have given evidence in support of their claim for issue of ryotwari patta in their favour and that the subsequent order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar is not vitiated by any irregularity nor barred by res judicata. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar. It is as against the grant of patta by the authorities below, the appellants have preferred the above appeal. 3. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, rest contended by agitating that the Settlement Tahsildar has no power to review his own order passed as early as 30th December, 1970, which is marked as Exhibit R-19 in this case. It is clear from Exhibit R-19 that the Settlement Tahsildar has not granted patta in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of 5.70 acres S. No. 419 2-A, 1.05 acres in S. No. 421 and 1.50 acres in S. No. 419 2-B and has stated that they will vest with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. 4. Mr. Annamalai, learned counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the Settlement Tahsildar power to review his order when once the relevant documents are clear to the effect that the grant was in favour of the first respondent and by section 4 of the Act, it has to be presumed that the grant was in respect of both the warams. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to this contention made by the learned counsel for the first respondent. We do not find any power for the Settlement Tahsildar to review his own order which has been already taken by way of appeal to the Tribunal and that appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to this contention made by the learned counsel for the first respondent. We do not find any power for the Settlement Tahsildar to review his own order which has been already taken by way of appeal to the Tribunal and that appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The fact that the Settlement Tahsildar has once again considered the grant of patta in respect of S. Nos. 419 2-A, 421 and 419/2-B will not in any way cure the defect inasmuch as there is absolutely no provision under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder for such course being adopted by Settelment Tahsildar. Section 16 (4) (ii) of the Act states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as empowering the appropriate officer or authority to re-open any decision made under section 11.” This section also fortifies our view to the effect that the Settlement Tahsildar, who has decided the matter in respect of the above said survey numbers after holding the enquiry under section 11 of the Act, cannot review the same once over again. 5. As regards the other survey numbers, in respect of which no such order was made in Exhibit R-19, we have carefully considered the evidence on record and we are in agreement with the authorities below and confirm the grant of patta in favour of the first respondent herein. The evidence on record amply establishes that the grant was in favour of the first respondent and it is Iruwaram grant. Correctly, Mr. R. S. Venkatachari did not strenously argue on this aspect of the case. 6. For all these reasons we hold that the patta granted in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of S. Nos. 419 2-A, 421 and 419 2-B, over which a decision has already been rendered by the Settlement Tahsildar under Exhibit R-19, has to be set aside. In respect of the lands covered by other survey numbers, which are annexed to the order of the, Settlement Tahsildar, the patta will issue in favour of the first respondent. It is always open to the first respondent to take such appropriate remedies available to it to agitate the matter in respect of the survey numbers mentioned in Exhibit R-19, which are directed to be vested with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. It is always open to the first respondent to take such appropriate remedies available to it to agitate the matter in respect of the survey numbers mentioned in Exhibit R-19, which are directed to be vested with the Government under section 3 (b) read with section 3 (c) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms and dismissed in other respects. There will be no order as to costs. R.S. ----- Appeal partly allowed.