JUDGMENT : In INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 and INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012, the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 26/1963 along with the Cross Appeal No.63 of 2011 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 passed the common order dated 28.07.2021 dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Appeal. 2.Both the Inam CMAs were preferred by one S.I.Basheer Ahamed, S/o Sheik Ibrahim(inamdar). The Cross Appeal No.63 of 2011 in Inam C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 was by Ayisha Parveen Bijili, Fathima Sheras Bijili, Arifa FArshama Bijili, Jiyavur Rahaman Bijili and Hussain Bijili ( family members of G.S.Bijili, a rival claimant- herein after to be referred as private individuals). 3.In INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, the District Collector, Trichy, Defence Estate Officer and the Private individuals are arrayed as respondents. 4.In INAM C.M.A.No:1 of 2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer( North), Thasildar, Trichy, the Trichy District Jaggery & Jaggery Partner Merchants Association along with Private individuals are arrayed as respondents. 5.While S.T.A.No.2 of 2022 is directed against the Order dated 28.07.2021 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 by the appellant Mr.S.I.Basheer Ahamed, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007. The relief sought in this STA is to set aside the impugned order of confirming the order of the District Collector dated 04.07.2007 and to direct the District Collector, Trichy to fix assessment under the Tamilnadu Fixation Assessment and Free hold lands Act, 1973 ( Act 31 of 1973) in respect of land measuring 407.71 acres located in Trichy District, Tiruchi Taluk, Trichy Corporation Limits, formerly known as Sengulam Village and now as K.Abishekapuram Village in Ward L., Block Numbers 19, 20 and 21. 6.Whereas S.T.A.No.3 of 2022 is directed against the order dated 28.07.2021 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 by Mr.S.I.Basheer Ahamed, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012. 6.Whereas S.T.A.No.3 of 2022 is directed against the order dated 28.07.2021 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 by Mr.S.I.Basheer Ahamed, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012. The relief sought in this STA to set aside the impugned order confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 29.09.2011 and to direct the first respondent/ Assistant Settlement Officer, Trichy to fix assessment under the Tamilnadu Fixation Assessment and Freehold Lands Act , 1973 ( Act 31/1973), in respect of land measuring 2-16-86 Hectare, in SF.No: 60/1 and land measuring 16-60-0 Hectare in SF.No:60/3 located in Trichy District and Taluk, in Sengulam Village. 7.The substantial questions of law raised in both the STA are common and it reads as below:- 1) Whether the Learned Courts below are right in coming to conclusion of the Inam land granted to the petitioner’s predecessors. 2) Whether the Learned Courts had properly considered that the petitioner lands comes under the purview of the Inam Abolition Act, 1963. 8. Mr.S.I.Bhasheer Ahamed, who is the common appellant in both these STA claims that land measuring 406.7 acres at Sengulam Village, Trichy District was granted as inam to Khaja Maruf Srishti @ Khaja Abubakkar by the Britishers in the year 1770. The same was confirmed through Title Deed No.814 dated 02.09.1864. The appellant is the descendant of the original inamdhar. He claims that his family was enjoying the property continuously without any hindrance, till the year 1965. After Act 26/1963 came into force, without any notice, the Government has classified the land as Government Porambokku. When the unilateral absorption of the land by the Government came to the notice and knowledge of his predecessors, they started giving representations to the government authorities with documents to prove that the land in dispute already declared as freehold land, the absorption of the land by Government under Act 26 of 63 is incorrect. The land should be assessed and he must be recognized as the owner of the land under Act 31 of 1973. 9.The representation of the appellant, objection by one Bijili and Kadhirvelu as well the directions of the High Court issued in W.P.No. 796 of 2000, W.P.No.7156 of 2004 and W.P.No.1289 of 2004 were taken into consideration and the Settlement Officer orders on 04.07. 9.The representation of the appellant, objection by one Bijili and Kadhirvelu as well the directions of the High Court issued in W.P.No. 796 of 2000, W.P.No.7156 of 2004 and W.P.No.1289 of 2004 were taken into consideration and the Settlement Officer orders on 04.07. 2007 rejecting the claim made by the appellant. The appeal against before the Tribunal is Inam C.M.A.No.1 of 2007. 10.Pending his Appeal C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 before the Tribunal, the appellant made a representation to the Government to issue patta under the provisions of Act 26/1963 and filed a writ petition W.P.No.2302 of 2009 before the High Court to consider the representation. Pursuant to the direction passed by the High Court, the representation for grant of patta was considered by the Director of Survey and Settlement. He returned the representation with endorsement to move the Inam Abolition Tribunal. Accordingly, the Appellant filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2011 before the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal at Trichy. However, the Tribunal, vide order dated 11.08. 2011, quashed the endorsement and directed the authorities to decide the said representation on merits under Section 9 of the Inam Abolition Act. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Assistant Settlement Officer, (North) heard the appellant and by order, dated 29.12.2011, dismissed his claim for patta as devoid of merits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had preferred Inam CMA 1/ 2012. 11.The Tribunal, on considering the materials placed, dismissed the appeals confirming the order of the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer impugned. The tribunal has held that the claim of the appellant not sustainable, since the land been vested with the Government after abolition of Inam. The claim was not made within the time prescribed. The belated claim cannot be considered since it is barred by limitation. Secondly, the claim of the appellant that it was free hold land and not an inam given for service also not sustainable since no proof for payment of quit rent submitted. Thirdly, the land is classified as Eri proambokku ( water body). No patta can be issued for water body. Fourthly, the claim of the appellant that he is the descendant of the original grantee itself not proved. The genealogy relied by the appellant to show he is the descendant of Ghaja Maruf Srishti @ Ghaja Abubakar, is a fact disputed. The heirloom dispute among the rival claimants not attained conclusiveness. No patta can be issued for water body. Fourthly, the claim of the appellant that he is the descendant of the original grantee itself not proved. The genealogy relied by the appellant to show he is the descendant of Ghaja Maruf Srishti @ Ghaja Abubakar, is a fact disputed. The heirloom dispute among the rival claimants not attained conclusiveness. 12.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the four reasons for dismissing the appeal are baseless and ill found. The finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the records and evidence. Before re-classifying the free hold land granted by the Britishers, the Settlement Officer ought to have conducted proper enquiry giving notice to all the persons interested in the land. The classification vesting the freehold land with the Government been done without notice to the appellant’s father and the appellant who were the persons interested in the land and also the persons in possession of the land. Secondly, after knowing that the free hold land given to their forefathers been wrongly classified as Eri prombokku without notice, representations since 1965 given objecting the classification of the land as Government land. Thereafter, in this connection writ petitions were filed to consider the representations based on the documents relied. Thereafter, the settlement officer enquired the representation. About 23 documents were submitted to prove the claim. Nevertheless, those documents were ignored by the settlement Officer. Without considering the documents and the representations given as early in the year 1965 objecting the classification, the tribunal also erred in holding the claim is barred by limitation. The finding that the claim made after 40 years of the classification is an error apparent on record. 13.Regarding the failure to produce quit rent receipts, the learned Senior counsel submit that the quit rent payments were made almost 130 years ago by the predecessors, hence expecting to produce 130 years old receipts is unfair. However, the revenue records would show that the after portion of the property taken over by the government for other purposes, remaining land is in possession of the appellant and his predecessors. The land has been enjoyed by the appellant and his forefathers without any hindrance till 1965. However, the revenue records would show that the after portion of the property taken over by the government for other purposes, remaining land is in possession of the appellant and his predecessors. The land has been enjoyed by the appellant and his forefathers without any hindrance till 1965. In fact, the settlement officer, Thanjavur had recommended to the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai that the land is freehold land and therefore to be dealt under Act 31 of 1973. Therefore, after considering his recommendation, the land should have been dealt under Act 31/1963 and not under Act 26/1963. 14.Regarding the classification of the land as ‘Eri Prombokku’, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that, the information collected under RTI, discloses that there is no pond (eri) in Sengulam Village. As per the records maintained by the Public Works Department, no water body in the Sengulam area and the land was never a water body. While so based on the wrong information furnished by the revenue department, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal. 15.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that, the genealogy furnished by the appellant is already part of O.S.No.871 of 6 and proved before a court of law. Therefore having proved that the land given to Ghaja Maruf Srishti @ Ghaja Abubakar and it is a freehold land hence the appellant as descendant of Ghaja Maruf entitle for patta, the settlement officer and the tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law in proper perspective. Therefore the appeals are to be allowed. 16.Per contra, the Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/ first respondent in support of the order passed by the Tribunal stated that, there is no dispute about the fact that it is part of TD 814 as found in Inam Fair Register (IFR) as on 21.04.1864. However, the original Grantee is not Ghaja Maruf Srishti @ Ghaja Abubakar as claimed by the applicant. The records indicates the original grantee in the year 1770 was Amir Ul Bahadur s/o Mohammed AliKhan. The applicant claims that he is the grand-child of the Ghaja Maruf. Earlier proceedings, in respect the inam land of Sengulam village indicates that there was on Khaja Maruf sahib claiming himself as the second son of the original grantee and filed O.S.No.81 of 1933 along with two others. The applicant claims that he is the grand-child of the Ghaja Maruf. Earlier proceedings, in respect the inam land of Sengulam village indicates that there was on Khaja Maruf sahib claiming himself as the second son of the original grantee and filed O.S.No.81 of 1933 along with two others. His son and daughter Syed Khaja Moinuddin chistithi and Bhashirunnisa Bibi as only legal heirs of Khaja Maruf participated in the Proceeding initiated under section 42 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948 ( Act XXVI of 1948). Our of the total compensation for the said estate Khaja Maruf and his alienees 172 in rd numbers were give 1/3 share. Excluding this amount, from out of the rd remaining 2/3 , Syed Khaja Moinuddin given compensation for the estate rd th in the ratio of 2/3 or 8/27 share, his sister Bhashirunnisa Bibi was given rd 1/3 or 4/27 share and Sojan @ Ulaganatha Muthariyan and others who are th the legal heirs of the the court auction purchasers of 2/9 share of the th rd rd Judgment debtor Mr. Khaja Burhanuddin Sahib, given 2/9 or 1/3 of 2/3 share from out of the remaining compensation. 17.While deciding the petitions filed under Section 42 and 50 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, three different group of persons claiming their predecessor name as Khaja Maruf made objections and counter claim. The Estate Abolition Tribunal, Maduari vide its proceedings dated 16/05/1958 given quitus to entire issue. The genealogy produced by the appellant im is not a proof of his descendancy . After abolition of permanent settlement, the land was surveyed and taken over by the Government on 15/04/1965 vide GO Ms No:781. The pond (ERI) and the agricultural land lost its character in the course of urbanization. Substantial portion has been occupied and converted into building site. Third parties occupied the land and after putting up the construction they sought for patta. Only thereafter, the appellant starting making claim over the property, which is a dead and stale claim even without proof of his entitlement. 18. The submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and the documents perused. 19.The property which is subject matter of the STAs under consideration been in storm of litigation ever since 1882. The ownership and its character been dealt by Revenue Authorities and Courts at different point of time and reached finality long ago. 18. The submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and the documents perused. 19.The property which is subject matter of the STAs under consideration been in storm of litigation ever since 1882. The ownership and its character been dealt by Revenue Authorities and Courts at different point of time and reached finality long ago. However, the appellant and his predecessors though failed in all their earlier attempts to get ownership of the prime property located in the heart of Trichy city had devised a different strategy and plea to keep the stale claim appear to be alive, expecting the wind will fall in their favour. This court had consciously made the above remarks as its observation based on the records. To decide on the questions of law raised by the appellant, it is necessary to place the history of the property and certain facts which the appellant had conveniently omitted to place on record or with editing. 20.After taking over the land at Sengulam Village covered under TD 814 by the Government, the issue regarding disbursing the compensation between rival claimants came up for consideration before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Madurai in a batch of petitions bearing O.P.Nos. 797 and 798 of 1957; O.P.Nos.16, 17, 200, 384 and 394 of 1958. The Estate abolition Tribunal at Madurai had gone in detail the petitions filed under Sections 42 and 50 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act,1948 and had observed that, the extract from the Inam Register relating to the Village of Sengulam dated 21.06.1964, issued by the Collector’s Office, Trichy show that the grant of vast extend of land mentioned in TD 814 was granted by Nawab of Carnatic (Amir Ul Bhadur, son of Mohammed Ali Khan Hirzir th 1183, 8 February, 1770 as per Wallace’s register. (Therefore the claim of the appellant tracing the right as if his forefathers got the grant from Britishers itself an incorrect statement. In fact the act for regulating the territory held by East Indian Company, by the British Parliament commenced only after the Regulation Act, 1773 and more particularly only after Regulating Act, 1801) [parenthesis by us]. 21.The basic records on which the inams were settled by the Inam Commission were the register prepared by the Collector Mr.Wallance shortly after the assumption of the Trichirappali District by the British in the year 1801 and another register prepared by Mr. 21.The basic records on which the inams were settled by the Inam Commission were the register prepared by the Collector Mr.Wallance shortly after the assumption of the Trichirappali District by the British in the year 1801 and another register prepared by Mr. Travers for entire village which included those that had not been previously registered by Mr. Wallance. This extract which is the authenticated record shows that this is a personal inam and hereditary in nature. The Inam Register Extract of Sengulam Village shows The grantor Amirullah Marah Bahadur, S/o Mohammed Alikhan. The grantee is stated to be Khaja Abu Bakkar. In th rd remarks column it is shown that Haju Bi owned 1/3 of the Inam and the rd descendants of Hussainudin owned 2/3 of the Inam. Moinudin (Son of Hussainudin) purchased the shares of his brothers Aminuddin , Nizamuddin, Maruf and Nazzirudddin. The said Moinudin is the grand-father of Kaja Maruf of Tiruchirapalli. Baranuddin died in the year 1910. Haju Bi gifted rd th her 1/3 share to her grand sons. Mayandi Muthariyan purchased 2/9 share from Buranuddin and got a decree of partition in O.S.No.164 of 1900. 22.Going a little back, we find there have been several litigations about the Sengulam Village from 1892 onwards and land acquisition proceedings from mid 1920’s. One such ligation which provides us sufficient inputs about the claims over the property is the common order th dated 6 Nov 1928 passed in O.P.Nos. 225, 368, 369, 381, 415, 436, 437, and 438 of 1926 and O.P.No.12 of 1927 ( on the file of Principal Sub Court, Trichy). When compensation for the Inam lands of Sengulam village acquired for the Staff Quarters of South Indian Railways, for remodeling of the Railway Junction Staff Quarters, remodeling and classification of the yard of the Trichirapalli Junction and for Ceylon Emgiration Depot, Station sought to be disbursed. There was multiple claims and objections among persons claiming as the inamdars and Court auction purchasers from the inamdars. The Sub-ordinate Court at Triuchirapalli, while considering the awards under references (claims and objections) filed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, framed the following 3 questions for consideration:- (1) Which Inamdars are entitled to the melwaram right in acquired lands ? (2)What are the extents of the melwaram interest and the kudiwaram right in the acquired lands? (2)What are the extents of the melwaram interest and the kudiwaram right in the acquired lands? (3)Whether any enhancement of the melwaram interest to be paid in respect of the acquired lands ? 23.The Learned Subordinate Judge, on examination of exhibits, has recorded that in the earlier land acquisition case initiated in the year 1909, Khaja Maruf of Tiruchirapalli was adjudged to be the owner of the melwaram right in respect of some lands in Sengulam Village and he got the entire compensation. He has sold to several persons land of different measures in the Inam village of Sengulam. After considering all the relevant materials, the Court in the common judgment ( P 225/1926 etc) held, Kaja Maruf of Tiruchirapalli, S.T.Ramasami Iyer and T.S.Muthusami Pillai and T.S. Ponnusami Pillai and Ceylon Emigration Commissioner alone are entitle for melwaram compensation proportion to their title. Whereas thc rival claimants Khaja Maruf of Pulimangulam and Mahbub bijili Sahib and Shaeb Bisa Bibi and Biju Bisa Bibi as well as Ghulam Razul have no right to any portion of the compensation amount. 24.While so, after Act 26/1948 came into force, proceedings initiated to pay compensation to the inamdars and persons in possession of the inam land. Again one group claiming the compensation and other group making rival clams came up for consideration in O.P.No.797 of 1957, O.P.Nos.798 of 1957, O.P.Nos.16, 17, 200 , 384 and 394/ 1958 referred earlier, the Tribunal taking note of the fresh entries of alienation of the property, held that the Inam Fair Register, reveals that there are 172 alienees/ inamdars other than the 8 (eight) persons shown as original inamdars in the Inam Extract of the year 1864. 25.We, from the Judgment of the Sub court, Trichy in O.P. No.225 of 1926 etc., dated 8.11.1928 and from the proceedings of the Estates Abolition Tribunal , Madurai vide dated 16.05.1958 find that the original grantee of the inam in Sengulam Village was not Khaja Abuaker Chisthi @ Khaja Maruf as claimed by the applicant. Therefore the claim made with the aid of the genealogical table furnished by him is incorrect. Hence, his claim right in the schedule land is baseless. Therefore the claim made with the aid of the genealogical table furnished by him is incorrect. Hence, his claim right in the schedule land is baseless. 26.In the judgment of the Sub court, Trichy dated 08.11.1928, in the batch of claim petition arising out of the land acquisition proceedings, the court has observed that the land though classified as prombokku subsequently, the character of the land as inam will get erased. Hence the persons holding inam and persons who were in possession of the land acquired to be paid the compensation amount. This judgment speaks about how the inam lands been dealt by its inamdars, the previous litigations and transfers of the enjoyment of Melwaram of the inam land. During the relevant point of time, when the claim made for the land acquired for South Indian Railways and Ceylon Emigration Depot, the Court found that the income derived from the inam land been enjoyed exclusively by Khaja Maruf of Tiruchirapalli and not by others including Khaja Maruf of Pullimangulam a rival claim. On the basis of this finding, when the issue of paying compensation for the inam land absorbed by the Government, the 173 alienations made by Khaja Maruf and the mortgage debts of his siblings, decree in the mortgage suit, the partition suit by the court-auction purchasers were all taken into consideration and the compensation for the land to the inamdars and others been decided by the Tribunal in its proceedings dated 16.05.1958. 27.Thereafter, when the proceedings commenced under Act 26/1963, to decide about the issuance of ryotwari patta for the erstwhile inam land there was no participation by the appellant or his predecessors. Despite that, his belated representation been examined pursuant to the Court direction. The appellant could not place any material to prove his occupation of the land on his own or through the inamdars, who had already lost possession. Therefore, the order of the Settlement officer dated 04.07.2007 recording the fact that the compensation for the inam land abolished under Act XVI of 1948 deposited 40 years ago and subsequent proceeding under Act XVI of 1963 completed as earlier as in the year 1965 and property been taken over by the Government on 15.04.1965. Hence, the claim over the property after 40 years is unsustainable. Hence, the claim over the property after 40 years is unsustainable. 28.While this order of the Settlement Officer dated 04.07.2007 challenged and pending before the Tribunal in Inam C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, the appellant tweeting the facts and prayer including the description of the property, given a petition on 12.06.2009 before the Government to issue patta and then filed writ petition 2302/2009 for mandamus to consider the said representation, He had challenged the return of the representation with endorsement before the Tribunal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2011 and got the matter remand for fresh consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer. 29.The Assistant Settlement Officer ( North), Chennai after due consideration of the facts and the locus of the appellant, had held that the records maintained by the inamdars prior to taking over clearly reveals that the lands were only classified as Sengulam Eri Poramboke. The lands are coming under the prohibition found under th second provision of Section 11 (iii) of the Act 26/1963. For grant of ground rent patta under Section 15(4) of Act 26/1963, the claimant to prove that there existed a building belonging to him as on the notified date and prior to that date. In this case the lands were only porambokku and there is no building at all owned by the petitioner. The character of the land never been a ryoti. Therefore the claim under section 16 of the Act 26/1963 is not sustainable. 30.Relying upon the Title Document No:814 and entry in the Inam Fair Register, the appellant had made the claim after 40 years. On 28.12.1999 and 18.07.2000 which is the basis for the order of the settlement officer dated 04.07.2007, the land was not in the possession of the appellant or his predecessor. The inam character of the land got lost after the Madras Estates Abolition Act. After the proceedings under Act 26/1963 came into force, the request of granting ryotwari patta been considered and finally lands in disputes were vest with the Government from 15.04.1965. S.I. Bhasheer Ahamed, the appellant herein, along with 4 others had first filed O.S.No.871 of 1996 before the District Munsif Court, Trichy against G.S.Biliji and 16 others (rival claimants) seeking declaration of their entitlement over the compensation paid for the inam land under the Estate Inam Abolition Act. Allowed the suit to be dismissed for default on 10/07/2003. S.I. Bhasheer Ahamed, the appellant herein, along with 4 others had first filed O.S.No.871 of 1996 before the District Munsif Court, Trichy against G.S.Biliji and 16 others (rival claimants) seeking declaration of their entitlement over the compensation paid for the inam land under the Estate Inam Abolition Act. Allowed the suit to be dismissed for default on 10/07/2003. Suppressing the admission of the fact the land already taken over by the government and compensation deposited, had filed W.P.No.798 of 2000, W.P.No.8783 of 2001, W.P.No.7156 of 2004 and W.P.No.248 of 2007, to entertain the representation dated 11.06.2009 containing a plea contrary to the relief sought in the declaration suit admitting the vesting of the property with the Government. 31.In the order dated 04.07.2007, which is impugned in Inam C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, the Settlement Officer had brought out the contradictory claim of the appellant to reject his claim as unsustainable. Thus, without any foundation, the appellant had put up an illusionary edifice to sustain his claim for patta. The Government as well as the Tribunal had gone into the records and had rightly concluded that the inam lands taken over by the Government in the year 1965 and dealt as Govrnment porambokku, thereafter cannot be divested from the Government based on a stale claim. That too without proper proof regarding his lienage from the original grantee and payment of quit rent. 32.The common order of the Tribunal passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.1 of 2012 is based on the documents and the revenue records. In-consistency in the case of the appellant at different point of time before different forum, had exposed his falsehood. Hence, we hold that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal to interfere. A baseless claim apparently by a person, who could not even prove his lienage and proof of payment of rent during the tenure of enjoyment been rightly dismissed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Trichy vide its common order dated 28.07.2021. 33.In view of the above discussion, the questions of law raised are all held against the appellant. S.T.A.No.2 of 2022 and S.T.A.No.3 of 2022 stands dismissed with costs through out. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.