transfer of patta, if he finds that the purchasers have got pre-existing right. Whether the properties are tank poramboke or not, the second respondent has not given proper opportunity to the 1st respondent to establish their sale. Once the first appellant being the head of the Revenue District, who finds that the subject property is not tank poramboke, granted the licence for quarry and without going into those aspects, the second appellant simply rejected the application of the 1st respondent, which is erroneous. Though the second appellant erroneously rejected the same, the appellate Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects, especially, the Act 30 of 1963 is not a bar to grant patta to the rights, if the persons have got the pre-existing right. The 1st respondent based on the sale deed, is entitled for the patta. The land which comprises granite stone is not one of the items coming under Section 10 of the Act 30 of 1963. There is a distinction between Tamilnadu Act 26 of 1963 and 30 of 1963. The Act 26 of 1963 contemplates proof of cultivation whereas Act 30 of 1963 land need not be cultivated. All the rocky soils are not poramboke. Further, there is no concrete finding that it is a tank poramboke or a sunai or a granite stone and therefore, the second appellant without ascertaining the Act, simply rejected without any basis that it is a tank poramboke. Therefore, the appellate Tribunal rightly set aside the order of the second appellant and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
