ORDER S. Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The proceedings challenged in this writ petition are those under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The factual finding is that the original petitioner, who is no more, and whose legal representatives have come on record, is not the owner of the site. By the ultimate proceedings of the second respondent, it has been directed the first respondent will be entitled to ground rent patta under Section 13 of the Act for the site in question with a declaration that the superstructure thereon should vest with the petitioner. If I take note of the pronouncements of this Court, and I find the concerned pronouncements in fact have not been taken note of by the second respondent, the above view of the second respondent cannot be upheld. It is a well-settled principle that unless the persons owns the site in which the buildings is put up, he will not be entitled to a patta under Section 13 of the Act, and the site will have to be dealt with as land vested in the Government for appropriate relief outside the provisions of the Act. More or less similar facts came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court, to which I have been a party in Sri Jambukeswaraswami Devastanam rep by its Executive Officer v. Kailasam Pillai, S.T.A. No. 341 of 1977, dated 6-9-1982, The arguments put forth by both the sides and how they were dealt with and how the ratio was enunciated will be clear if I make the following extracts from the said judgment: Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that in as much as the site belongs to the appellant herein, there is no question of any vesting of the building or the site with the respondent herein and that Section 8(2) will come into operation with the result that patta has to be granted in favour of the appellant herein, Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that even though there cannot be any vesting as such in favour of the respondent, in as much as the respondent is the owner of the superstructure, the matter has to be referred to the Government for granting appropriate relief outside the purview of the Act. V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that even though there cannot be any vesting as such in favour of the respondent, in as much as the respondent is the owner of the superstructure, the matter has to be referred to the Government for granting appropriate relief outside the purview of the Act. In this connection, we can usefully refer the decision rendered by a Bench of our High COURT in Vellappa Gounder V. Thirugnanasambanda Chettiar 93 L.W. 707 : A similar situation arose in that case wherein the site was owned by one party, while the superstructure thereon was owned by other party. In those circumstances, the Bench of our High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the owner of the buildings were directed to approach the Government, if they choose for appropriate relief. Section 8(1) and (2) clearly spell out the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of lands. As far as Section 13 is concerned, the section reads as follows: (1) Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day; but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls, to levy the appropriate assessment thereon. (2) In this section, 'building' includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied by as an appurtenance thereto. A catena of decisions arising from our High Court have consistently held that there must be coalescence of both the building and the site in one person for the purpose of vesting the building as provided in Section 13 of the Act 30 of 1963. It is admitted by the parties herein the site belongs to the appellant herein while the building belongs to the respondent herein. In such circumstance, we are of the view that Section 8 will not come into play in as much as there is a building on the site in question. There cannot be vesting of the building under Section 13 in as much as the site is not owned by the respondent herein, who is the owner of the building. In such circumstance, we are of the view that Section 8 will not come into play in as much as there is a building on the site in question. There cannot be vesting of the building under Section 13 in as much as the site is not owned by the respondent herein, who is the owner of the building. It is on similar circumstances that the direction which we have referred to above was given by the Bench of our High Court in Vellappa Gounder v. Thirugnanasambanda Chettiar, 93 L.W. 707 : In these circumstances, we observe that the land in question will vest with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. The provisions of the Minor Inams Act do not prevent the Government considering the claims of the owners of the building for grant of patta outside the provisions of the Act. Hence, the order of the Tribunal vesting the building and the site with the respondent has to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with an observation that the land will vest with the Government under Section 3(b) of Act 30 of 1963 and it would be open to the persons who are owning the building to apply to the Government in whom the site is vested by virtue of Section 3(b), for grant of a ground rent patta outside the provisions of the Act. There will be no orders as to costs. Following the above ratio, this writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the site in question will vest with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act, and it would be open to the petitioner, who is the owner of the building to apply to the Government in whom the site is vested by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Act, for grant of ground rent patta outside the provisions of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.