JUDGMENT : V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. The present Second Appeal is filed to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.127 of 2001 dated 24.09.2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Sivaganga, confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.6 of 1996 dated 30.08.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga and decree the suit. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.6 of 1996 and the respondent herein is the defendant therein. The said suit has been filed by the appellant seeking to declare that the appellant / plaintiff is entitled to the suit property and to restrain the respondent / defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed holding that the appellant / plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property by Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2001. As against the same, the appellant / plaintiff preferred A.S.No.127 of 2001 and by Judgment dated 24.09.2002, the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1996. For better convenience, the parties herein are ranked as per their rank before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1996 are as follows:- (i) The suit property along with some other adjacent properties originally belonged to one Ramasamy Yadav and 2 others, who sold the same in favour of one Nagarajan by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.03.1965 marked as Ex.A2. The above said purchaser Nagarajan is none other than the father of the Secretary of the plaintiff's college, and that the plaintiff's college was put into possession of the suit property along with other properties covered under the sale deed dated 20.03.1965, which was purchased out of the funds of the institution for the benefit of the college. The above said purchaser Nagarajan is none other than the father of the Secretary of the plaintiff's college, and that the plaintiff's college was put into possession of the suit property along with other properties covered under the sale deed dated 20.03.1965, which was purchased out of the funds of the institution for the benefit of the college. The college was started by the above said Nagarajan as the Secretary of the college in the name of his father and mother as Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal College by executing a release deed in favour of the college under Ex.A5 dated 04.11.1969 by which the suit property along with other properties was transferred in the name of the plaintiff's college even though the plaintiff's college was put into possession of the properties from the year 1965 itself and constructed an auditorium and latrine for the use of the students by keeping the remaining portion as one block along with other properties as per the sale deed dated 20.11.1965 and as per the Release Deed dated 04.11.1969. (ii) Subsequently, there was a change of management of the plaintiff's college and one Thangavelu took over the management from A.R. Nagarajan in the year of 1990. In the year 1990, the Tahsildar sent a communication to the plaintiff's college stating that the suit property had been classified as 'Oorani Poramboke' and the plaintiff was directed to remove the constructions made by the college. The suit property right from the outset was a ryoti land and the classification of the property as 'Oorani Poramboke' was wrong. In view of the erroneous classification, the secretary of the college presented a petition to the Revenue Authorities on 15.01.1991 requesting them either to assign or lease out the property to the plaintiff's college at a price or a reasonable rent. The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur after making personal inspection of the suit property sent a proposal to the government in his proceedings No.R.Dis.685/91 dated 6.7.91 recommending the sale of the land to the plaintiff. In this recommendation, the Tahsildar had stated that there was no Oorani on the ground and general public had no access to the same. The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur after making personal inspection of the suit property sent a proposal to the government in his proceedings No.R.Dis.685/91 dated 6.7.91 recommending the sale of the land to the plaintiff. In this recommendation, the Tahsildar had stated that there was no Oorani on the ground and general public had no access to the same. Though the plaintiff had right over the suit property he applied for assignment only to avoid unnecessary litigation, but the District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga sent a communication to the plaintiff's college informing that neither the suit property can be assigned or leased out, as the policy of the government prevented the same. After this communication dated 19.09.1995, the subordinate officials of the defendant are threatening to demolish the constructions already made over the suit property. 4. The defendant filed a written statement in O.S.No.6 of 1996 stating that the plaintiff should establish that the suit property was covered under the sale deed dated 20.3.1965. This sale deed was executed without any right as the suit property had been classified as "Karuppar Kovil Oorani Poramboke". At the time of the passing of Act 26/48, the suit property was vested with the government. Even before that the suit property which was an Oorani belonged to the government. The plaintiff admitting the suit property belonged to the government, made a representation for leasing out the suit property or assigning the same to the plaintiff's college. The plaintiff in the suit property had made construction to an extent of 4,700 squre feet, but he claims that the entire suit property is in his possession and this is not sustainable. Therefore pleaded to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. Before the trial court, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the defendant one witness was examined and six documents were marked. 6. Therefore pleaded to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. Before the trial court, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the defendant one witness was examined and six documents were marked. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side, the trial court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit by its judgement dated 30.08.2001 by holding that despite the Tahsildar, Thiruppathur and the District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga respectively under Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12 have informed the government that there was no Oorani on ground and the public did not have any access to the suit property any more and the plaintiff's college has made permanent constructions in the same, the Commissioner Land Administration, Madras has declined either to convey the property or lease out the same to the college, on the ground that the property classified as 'Oorani Poramboke' could not be conveyed to others, without even taking into consideration the fact that the Oorani had ceased to exist decades back and the general public do not have access any more to the suit property and the college seeks the suit property only for the benefit of the students to whom the government has been providing aid for their education. 7. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.127 of 2001 against the Judgment dated 30.08.2001. The appellate court after evaluating the rival pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and after framing issues dismissed the appeal after enquiry. 8. Aggrieved against the order, the Plaintiff filed this present Second Appeal and it was admitted on 09.04.2003 on the following substantial questions of law:- “ (1) Have not the Courts below erred in considering the scope of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948) and thereby detenting the rights of the appellant with respect to holdings? (2) Have not the Courts below erred in having failed to decide the rights of the appellant to get patta for the suit lands under the provisions of Section 11 to Section 18 of Act XXVI of 1948? (2) Have not the Courts below erred in having failed to decide the rights of the appellant to get patta for the suit lands under the provisions of Section 11 to Section 18 of Act XXVI of 1948? (3) Whether the claim of the appellant is by way of adverse possession can be rejected on the ground that the said claim is inconsistent with the claim of title from the beginning?” 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the suit property is surrounded by other ryoti lands under cultivation. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit oorani was formed on a portion of the properties that were the ryoti lands then. Under section 2(16) of the Estates Land Act, 1908 defines that ryoti land is a land capable of cultivation. A ryoti land need not always be under cultivation. It is enough that it is capable of being cultivated. Therefore, when a portion of the ryoti land was converted into an Oorani the character of the property will not get altered and it will continue to be the ryoti land even during the time when it is used as an Oorani. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied a case State of Madras v. Ramalingaswamy Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 28 1 , wherein this Court held that the oorani portion of the land was treated and recognised as the ryoti land. The title to the properties was recognised by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1986 Supreme Court 794 [State of Tamilnadu Vs. Ramalingaswamigal Madam Etc.,] . Therefore, the portion of the property that was recorded as an 'Oorani' in the present suit is also to be recognised as the ryoti land. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also contends that the settlement authority had classified the suit property as an oorani porampoke. During the time when the zamindari system was in vogue, the state government did not have any property within any zamin village. The tanks, lakes, the oorani and other water bodies that were available within the zamin village were classified as the 'private tank' or the 'private lake' or the 'private oorani' belonging to the zamindar or the land-holder. During the time when the zamindari system was in vogue, the state government did not have any property within any zamin village. The tanks, lakes, the oorani and other water bodies that were available within the zamin village were classified as the 'private tank' or the 'private lake' or the 'private oorani' belonging to the zamindar or the land-holder. These private tanks and others will belong only to the zamindar and the state government will not have any right or interest in any of these private tanks and other water bodies. The tanks or the lakes or the oorani or other water bodies in the zamin village belonging to the ryot will have to be recognized as the ryoti lake. These ryoti tank will belong to ryot and the state government or the zamindaras the case may be, will not have any right or interest in these tanks or lakes as the case may be. The suit oorani is only a ryoti land and is cultivable land but it is used as an Oorani. The settlement authorities should have taken note of the previous history of the property, ownership of the property during the zamin period and the present user of the property should have granted the ryotiwari patta to the ryot in recognition of the pre-exisitng right in the property. Therefore, settlement authority has no authority or power to decide the question of title to any property. By any wrongful classification of the property as an oorani poramboke, the settlement officer cannot deprive a person of his right, title and interest in any property that too without any compensation for the property. So, the question of title can be decided only by the civil court and it cannot be decided by the revenue authorities or the settlement authorities. This was decided in the case of State of Madras Vs. Ramalingaswamy Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 281 ,wherein the order made by settlement officer granting or refusing the ryotwari patta was only for the revenue purposes and that the civil court alone and the same was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1986 Supreme Court 794 [State of Tamilnadu Vs. Ramalingaswamigal Madam Etc.,] 11. Ramalingaswamy Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 281 ,wherein the order made by settlement officer granting or refusing the ryotwari patta was only for the revenue purposes and that the civil court alone and the same was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1986 Supreme Court 794 [State of Tamilnadu Vs. Ramalingaswamigal Madam Etc.,] 11. That apart, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that by exclusive possession of the property during the statutorily prescribed period, the person in possession will be considered to have prescribed and perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. Such adverse possession and prescription of title will be against the whole word inclusive of the true owner of the property. The question of knowledge is also taken for consideration with reference to the strangers also. If a person acknowledges that a particular person is the owner of the property, his possession thereafter will continue to be in recognition of the ownership of that particular person and his possession cannot be adverse as against that person. Therefore, the adverse possession as between the strangers need not be with the knowledge of the true owner. 12. On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent reiterated the submissions made before the trial Court and Appellate Court and the contentions putforth in the Written statement and pleaded to dismiss the Second Appeal. 13. Originally in O.S.No.6 of 1996, Judgment was pronounced on 17.10.1996 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and thereafter an appeal was preferred against the same in A.S.No.3 of 1997, the Appellate Court pronounced the Judgment dated 19.01.1998 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial court. Thereafter, Second Appeal was preferred in S.A.No.680 of 1998, wherein the Second Appeal was allowed setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court. Further, a direction was also issued to frame an issue specifically in respect of the plea of the plaintiff claiming to prescription of title and remanded the suit back to the trial court to give further opportunities to both parties. Thereafter, the court below framed the issues afresh and passed the Judgment. 14. It is to be noted that in a case of State of Madras Vs. Ramalingaswamy Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 28 , this Court held that the oorani portion of the land was treated and recognised as the ryoti land. Thereafter, the court below framed the issues afresh and passed the Judgment. 14. It is to be noted that in a case of State of Madras Vs. Ramalingaswamy Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 28 , this Court held that the oorani portion of the land was treated and recognised as the ryoti land. The title to the properties was recognised by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court in 1986 Supreme Court 794 . Therefore, the portion of the property that was recorded as an oorani in the present suit was also to be recognised as the ryoti land. Further, the settlement authority had classified the suit property as an oorani porampoke. During the time when the zamindari system was in vogue, the state government did not have any property within any zamin village. The tanks, lakes, the oorani and other water bodies that were available within the zamin village were classified as the private tank or the private lake or the private lake or the private oorani belonging to the zamindar or the land-holder. These private tanks and others will belong only to the zamindar and the state government will not have any right or interest in any of these private tanks and other water bodies. The tanks or the lakes or the oorani or other water bodies in the zamin village belonging to the ryot will have to be recognized as the ryoti lake. These ryoti tank will belong to ryot and the state government or the zamindaras the case may be, will not have any right or interest in these tanks or lakes as the case may be. The suit oorani is only a ryoti land and is cultivable land but it is used as an Oorani. The settlement authorities should have taken note of the previous history of the property, ownership of the property during the zamin period and the present user of the property and should have granted the ryotiwari patta to the ryot in recognition of the pre-exisitng right in the property. Therefore, settlement authority has no authority or power to decide the question of title to any property. Therefore, settlement authority has no authority or power to decide the question of title to any property. Further, in the case of Ramalinga Swamy madam case reported in (1962) 2 MLJ 281, the order made by settlement officer granting or refusing the ryotwari patta was only for the revenue purposes and that the civil court alone was competent to decide the disputed question of title to any property. 15. On the documents placed on record and upon hearing the contentions made on either side, it is clear that the suit property was purchased by Nagarajan, the then correspondent of the plaintiff's college from Ramasami Yadav vide Ex.A2. The said Ramasami Yadhav purchased the suit property and other properties from one Sigappi under the sale deed Ex.A3 dated 20.03.1963 and the said Sigappi purchased the same from Meenakshi Ammal under the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 02.06.1959. The comprised land was then classified has oornai poromboke by the settlement officer under section 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. This erroneous classification will not affect the plaintiff's right and the same will not be binding upon the plaintiff. The substantial questions 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 16. As far as the 3 rd Substantial question of law is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff-college was in continuous, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment over the suit property adversely to the claim of the defendant from the year 1965. Admittedly, the plaintiff-college is in possession and enjoyment over the suit properties for more than the statutory period for about 30 years. The Suit property was not maintained as an Oorani poramboke had no access to the general public at any point of time, which was admitted and recommended not only by the Tahsildar but also by the District Revenue Officer under Ex.A11 and A12. Admittedly the suit property was not maintained as Ooraniporamboke and it forms part of the plaintiff's premises for morethan the statutory period without any interferences from any one or from the general public including the respondent herein. 17. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2016 dated 14.11.2022 at Paragraph No.13 held as follows:- “13. 17. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2016 dated 14.11.2022 at Paragraph No.13 held as follows:- “13. There cannot be any second opinion that the encroachments in respect of water bodies have to be necessarily removed as per the procedure contemplated under the Land Encroachment Act. However, it could be seen from the pleadings and submissions made by the parties, several buildings referred to by the petitioner, have come into existence atleast five decades before and the same have been permitted to be constructed in order to meet the growing demands of the general public. Such buildings include Corporation of Madurai and other Departments of the Government. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that there is no channel to supply water to the tank / ayacut area and the classification of the land in question was changed decades back and the land was converted into buildings in the year 1970 itself. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner viz., restoring the land in question to its original status viz., water body, is not feasible for consideration at this stage.” 18. Taking into consideration of all the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that 2.65 acres, which is situated in the middle of the plaintiff's property, wherein all the four sides are covered by the plaintiff's college premises and the said college being constructed for the welfare of the downtrodden community and there is no access to the said 2.65 acres to the general public at any point of time, as no Orani existed for more than years and also considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, stated supra, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and used by the college for the students' education purpose. Hence the plaintiff-college's interest has to be protected. The above said land has no access to third party, the said land has to be let out for lease, considering the usage by the college. Hence the plaintiff-college's interest has to be protected. The above said land has no access to third party, the said land has to be let out for lease, considering the usage by the college. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to modify the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court by directing the respondent / Government to take note of the fact that the possession of the land measuring 2.64 acres vests with the plantiff-college for a long period and to take a decision for leasing out for a valid rent to the plaintiff-college which would also fetch revenue to the State Government. Till taking such decision and appropriate rent being fixed, the possession of the plaintiff-college shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, with this direction, the Second Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, viz., M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012, to receive the documents as additional evidence of the petitioner / appellant in the S.A.No.439 of 2003 is allowed.