V.N. Khare and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.
1. The appellant herein is a trust which alleges that “Masthan Oorani” is its private property. According to the appellant, the said oorani is a separate oorani and it is used for drawing water for drinking to all the community irrespective of any caste or religion. In the year 1968 certain persons tried to interfere with the possession of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was compelled to file a suit before the District Munsif, Paramakudi for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed.
2. In the said suit, the State of Tamil Nadu was one of the defendants. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Legislature by amending Act 49 of 1974 inserted Section 14-A in the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (T.N. Act 26 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
3. On the basis of the aforesaid amendment, Panchayat Anaiyur sent a notice restraining the appellant from cutting trees grown around “Masthan Oorani”.
4. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the appellant put the decree passed in Original Suit No. 456 of 1968 decided on 27-6-1973 in execution.
5. In the execution case the defendant-respondent took the plea that the decree passed in Original Suit No. 456 of 1968 is not executable in view of insertion of Section 14-A of the Act. The executing court upheld the objection of the defendant-respondent. Consequently, the execution case filed by the decree-holder was rejected.
6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision by making observation that mere issue of a notice by the respondent was not disobedience of the decree. It is against the said judgment the decree-holder is in appeal before us.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High Court fell in error in rejecting the revision filed by the appellant without considering the real issue and legal position involved in the revision and also without recording any finding as to whether the decree was executable or not. The argument is well substantiated. It is not disputed that the civil court granted a decree for declaration as well as for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. After the decree was passed, the State Legislature amended the Act with retrospective effect.
8. Section 14-A of the 1948 Act reads as follows:
“14-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.”
9. It is alleged by the respondent that insertion of Section 14-A was deemed to have been inserted by Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974 (Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1974) with retrospective effect. It is also alleged by the respondent that the said provision has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or decree or order of a court or other authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 14-A provides that in case of any private tank, the private tank would vest in the panchayat. By the said Act, Section 3(b) was also amended and all the private tanks and oorani were also held to have vested in the State.
10. Under such circumstances, the High Court was required to consider as to whether the decree was executable or not. If the decree was executable, of course, the respondent cannot interfere with the possession of the appellant and if it is found that the decree was not executable and the private oorani of the appellant has vested in the State, the appellant had no right to cut and remove the trees or interfere with the public drawing water from the said oorani or claiming exclusive possession.
11. Under such circumstances, we set aside the judgment under appeal and send the case back to the High Court to decide the revision filed by the appellant on merits. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Till the matter is decided by the High Court, the appellant shall not cut and remove trees and further the parties shall maintain status quo.