(Delivered by The Chief Justice.)
The petitioners' case is that the grant in their favour comprised less than a village and therefore it is not an estate still less an under tenure estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If the grant is less than a village then obviously Madras Act XXVI of 1948 can have no application whatever. S. 9 of that Act provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Presumably, when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under S. 9 would not be strictly open to the aggrieved party. There is no other provision in the Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature which arises in this case, viz., whether a particular grant comprises less than a village. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit as he would have a food cause of action when proceedings are taken under colour of an Act which does not apply to the facts of the case. We have already held in petitions arising under Madras Act XXX of 1947 that in similar circumstances, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit. We accordingly hold that the proper and adequate remedy for the petitioners is by way of a suit. As they have such a remedy it is not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The application is therefore dismissed.
The learned Advocate General states that the Government will not take the objection under S. 80, Civil Procedure Code in case a suit is filed.
V.C.S