Judgment : Sri Mahalingaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvidaimaruthur and Sri Manokianathaswami Devasthanam, Thiruneelakudi, it is said are registered holders of the lands in villages going by the names Manjamalli, Thiruneelakkudi and Thiru-vidaimaruthur in Thanjavur District. The Tamil Nadu Levy of Ryotwari Assessment on Free-hold Lands Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1973-for short ‘the Act’) came into force with effect from 110. 1979. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated in the said Act, issued notices Nos.66, 75 and 79, dated 16. 1984 to the aforesaid Devast-hanams, relatable to their holdings of the registered lands respectively in the villages of Manjamalli, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thiruneelakkudi, as respects determination of the question of issuance of a rough patta and rates of assessment imposable on such holdings at a ryotwari settlement. The Devasthanams resorted to the present action under Art.226 of the Constitution impleading the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9 and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur as respondents praying for issue of writ of certiorari to quash those impugned notices. 2. Manifold grounds, though taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inclusive of the grounds relatable to the constitutional vires of the Act XXXI of 1973, yet during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thought fit to abandon all those grounds-specifically the grounds relatable to the challenge made as to the constitutional vires of the Act XXXI of 1973 and the right of the Government to determine the question of rates and assessments imposable on the holdings of the petitioners at a ryotwari settlement-and was rest content to vehemently put forth his submission revolving on the question of determination of the issuance 6f rough patta to the occupier of the lands by stating that such a question is beyond the pale of the provisions of the said Act and consequently, any action taken therefor by the Government is without jurisdiction and therefore, it goes without saying that the impugned notices deserve to be quashed, in so far as they relate to determination of the question of issuance of a rough patta to the occupier of the lands. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would, however, repel such a submission. 4. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would, however, repel such a submission. 4. There is no pale of controversy whatever that the registered land holdings of the petitioncrs-Devasthanams are relatable to holdings of grants traceable to Mohini allowance. 5. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of K.Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) and Natesan, J., in Sri Velar Vaidyanathaswami Devasthanam v. State of Madras, (1967)1 M.L.J. 43 , referring to Secretary of State for India in Council v. Vaithilinga Pandora Sannadhi Avargal, (Appeal Nos.40, 41, 42, etc. of 1936), which traced the History of Mohini grants, expressed that Mohini inam grants were only assignment to temples of the right of the Government revenue over specified lands, the Government retaining the right to future increments to revenue and the right to impose assessment on lands within the villages not covered by the specific terms of assignment. The grant of land revenue is not in respect of inam land but on lands which were held on ryotwari tenure. These assignment of revenue, in lieu of existing cash allowances, which in turn, were being made as compensation for temple lands resumed by East India Company. The so-called Mohini inam grants are not therefore ‘minor inams’ within the meaning of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act XXXI of 1964) and as such, do not fall within the purview of that Act. 6. In the backdrop and setting of the history of Mohini inam grants, it is thus clear that registered holdings of the petitioners-Devasthanams, which were traceable to Mohini inam grants are not inam lands,but only lands held on ryotwari tenure. 7. Having understood the nature and character of Mohini inam holdings of the petitioncrs-Devasthanams, the question that now falls for consideration is whether the Government under the Act XXXI of 1973 is entitled to determine the ques-tion of issuance of rough patta to occupier of lands. 8. In finding an answer to the question so posed, a survey of certain salient provisions adumbrated under the Act (XXXI of 1973), is necessary and as such an exercise may now be resorted to. 9. 8. In finding an answer to the question so posed, a survey of certain salient provisions adumbrated under the Act (XXXI of 1973), is necessary and as such an exercise may now be resorted to. 9. Sec.2(d) defines), ‘freehold land’ and it is as under: " ‘freehold land’ means any land held- .(i) free from demand of land revenue, or .(ii) subject to the payment of concessional land revenue and specified in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, and includes any land- .(i) in respect of which land revenue or other lax in respect of such land has been assigned in favour of any religious institution or charitable endowment in lieu of cash allowance known as mohini allowance, and .(ii) which is specified in Part II of the Schedule to this Act." 10. Sec.2(h) defines ‘ryotwari assessment’ by way of ‘means’ definition and it reads thus: " ‘ryotwari assessment’ means the assessment payable to the Government under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.9" 11. Sec.8 dealing with ‘manner of effecting ryotwari settlement’ is couched in the following terms: "8. Manner of effecting ryotwari settlement: (1) The Settlement Officer shall, as soon as may be, after the publication of this Act, effect ryotwari settlement of every freehold land in accordance with a settlement notification framed and published by the Government for the purpose. 2. The said notification shall embody the principles adopted in making ryotwari settlement in ryotwari areas and shall adopt- .(a) the rates of assessment as set out in the settlement or re-settlement notification in force on the date of the publication of this Act in the district in which the freehold land is situated; or .(b) if more than one such notification is in force in that district, the rates set out in one of those notifications which the Government consider to be most appropriate to the case. .(3) All rates of assessment imposed at a ryotwari settlement under this section shall be liable to revision from time to time as laid down in the settlement or re-settlement notification referred to in Sub-secs.(1) and (2). .(4) Any settlement notification published under Sub-sec.(1) shall have effect in supersession of any settlement or re-settlement notification, if any, already, in force in respect of the freehold land concerned. .(4) Any settlement notification published under Sub-sec.(1) shall have effect in supersession of any settlement or re-settlement notification, if any, already, in force in respect of the freehold land concerned. .(5) Neither such settlement notification nor any order passed in pursuance there of shall be liable to be questioned in any court of law." 12. Sec.9 prescribing ‘owner of freehold land liable to pay land revenue to Government’ runs as under: "9. Owner of freehold land liable to pay land revenue to Government: (1) Every owner of freehold land shall, for the fasti year commencing on the 1st day of July, 1972 and for each subsequent fasli year, be liable to pay to Government in respect of his freehold land the assessment under the ryotwari settlement effected under this Act. (2) The ryotwari assessment payable under Sub-sec.(1) shall be deemed to be public revenue due on land within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864) and shall be recoverable under the provisions of that Act." 13. Sec.10 provides for machinery for ‘decision of certain disputes’ relatable to liability to pay ryotwari assessment. It reads: "10. Decision of certain disputes: (1) If any person disputes- .(i) his liability to pay the ryotwari assessment under this Act; or .(ii) the application in respect of his land, of a particular rate of ryotwari assessment imposed as a ryotwari settlement under Scc.8, the Settlement Officer shall decide such dispute. .(2) From every decision of the Settlement Officer under Sub-sec(1) an appeal shall, within such time as may be prescribed lie to the Director. Explanation: Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring any right on any person to dispute the rates of ryotwari assessment imposed at a ryotwari settlement under Scc.8." 14. Sec.ll deals with ‘power of revision by Board of Revenue’. It is couched in the following terms: "11. Explanation: Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring any right on any person to dispute the rates of ryotwari assessment imposed at a ryotwari settlement under Scc.8." 14. Sec.ll deals with ‘power of revision by Board of Revenue’. It is couched in the following terms: "11. Power of revision by Board of Revenue: (1) The Board of Revenue may, .(i) on its own motion call for and examine the records of any proceeding under this Act; or (ii) on application made by the owner of lice-hold land in this behalf, call for and examine the records of any proceeding under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal lies to the Director under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.10), to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein, and if, in any case, it appears to the Board of Revenue that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly; Provided that the Board of Revenue shall not pass any order under this section prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. .(2) The Board of Revenue may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of its powers under Sub-sec.(I) in respect thereof. .(3) Every application to the Board of Revenue for the exercise of its powers under this section shall be preferred within the prescribed period; Provided that the Board of Revenue may in its discretion allow further lime not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the prescribed period." 15. Sec.23 dealing with ‘Act to override contract, grant, etc., ‘provides: "23. Act to override contract, grant, etc.: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any engagement, contract, grant, order or any law for the time being in force and any provision in any such engagement, contract, grant, order or law, by virtue of which the owner of freehold is not liable to pay to the Government any land revenue or other tax shall be deemed to have become inoperative with effect from the 1st of July, 1972." 16. From the very conspectus of various provisions, as extracted above, it is thus clear that the object of the Act is only to provide for the levy of ryotwari assessment on freehold land in the Slate of Tamil Nadu. It does not purport to affect or alter in any manner other rights in the freehold land. Ryotwari settlement of freehold land can be effected in accordance with the settlement notification framed and published by the Government for the purpose. The notification shall embody the principles adopted in making ryotwari settlements in ryotwari areas and it shall adopt the rates of assessment in force in the district, in which the freehold land is situate., All rates of assessments imposed at ryotwari settlement shall be liable 10 revision from time to time. 17. Any settlement notification published shall have effect in supersession of any settlement or re-settlement notification already in force in respect of the freehold land concerned. Neither such settlement notification nor any order passed in pursuance thereof shall be liable to be questioned in any court of law. Every owner of freehold land shall for the fasli year commencing from 1st July, 1972 and for subsequent fasli year, be liable to pay to Government in respect of freehold land the assessment under ryotwari settlement. If any dispute arises as to liablity to pay ryotwari assessment, such a dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer. The order of the Settlement Officer is liable to be challenged in appeal before the Director. The order of the Director in appeal is challengeable by way of revision before the Board of Revenue. Top of all, the provisions of the Act shall override any contract, grant or order or any law for the time being in force with effect from 1st July, 1972, thereby indicating the Government’s right to future increments to revenue in respect of freehold lands. 18. The object of various notices now under challenge is not only to bring the lands in question on par with similarly situated ryotwari lands for the purpose of assessment, but also for the purpose of deciding the question as to the entitlement of rough patta of those lands by the occupiers. 18. The object of various notices now under challenge is not only to bring the lands in question on par with similarly situated ryotwari lands for the purpose of assessment, but also for the purpose of deciding the question as to the entitlement of rough patta of those lands by the occupiers. It is, therefore, clear that the rights of the petitioncrs-Devasthanams in the lands in question are likely to be interfered with as "a result of those notices under challenge and therefore, it goes without saying that any action taken therefor by the Government is without jurisdiction, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-Devasthanams and in that view of the matter, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed in so far as they relate to deciding the question as to the entitlement of rough patta by the occupiers of those lands and the same are ordered accordingly. 19. The writ petition is thus disposed of on the above terms. No costs.