1. We are unable to agree in the opinion of the Judge that because some of the formalities prescribed by the darkhast rules have not been observed, he is entitled to cancel the patta granted to the appellant by the Government. Darkhast rules are departmental and if they are infringed, the remedy for such infringement is also departmental. Irregularities in observing those rules constitute no valid ground of interference by the Civil Courts with a grant of land made by the Government. The land in dispute is entered in the pymash account as waste and as such it is at the disposal of Government. It is not competent to the Civil Courts to set aside a grant made by an officer competent to make the grant. The two objections taken by the respondents against the grant have been disallowed. It has been found that he has no title as against the Government and it appears also that the land is entered in the pymash accounts as waste and not as threshing-floor. The District Munsif has further found that there is no communal necessity for reserving the land as a threshing-floor. It was held by this Court in Subbaraya v. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput I.L.R. 6 Mad. 303 that a Civil Court cannot compel the revenue authorities to make settlement with a particular person on the ground that he was entitled to preference under the darkhast rules, see also Subbaraya v. Krishnappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 422.
2. We set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif.
3. Respondents must pay appellant's costs in this Court and also in the lower Appellate Court.