1959 (11) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l. ( 2. ) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not maintainable, and he pointed out that under Section 9(4)(c) of Act XXVI of 1948, the decision of the Tribunal upon the issue in the suit was final, and not liable to be challenged in a Court of law. The arguments addressed before us resolved themselves into the following proposition. Though it may be indisputable that the decisions of the relevant Tribunals established under Act XX V I of 1948 and Act XXX of 1947 are conclusive upon the question that the village is an Inam estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, nevertheless, owing to the peculiar feature of this case that the Tribunal constituted under the statute first gave one decis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Balakrishnayya v. State of Andhra : (1954) 67 L.W. 36 (Short Notes), where Balakrishna Ayyar, J., held, under somewhat similar circumstances, that the Inam Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen an enquiry made under Section 9 of Act XXVI of 1948, at the request of the ryots. We do not think that it is necessary to dilate upon this aspect for the learned Judge was dealing with the case of a Settlement Officer making some kind of an administrative enquiry though under the Act. In the present case, we are concerned with a quasi -judicial Tribunal giving a finding in the presence of the parties, whether a particular village did or did not fall within the ambit of the relevant provision. As we have already stressed, there can be no ....