SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Maganti Subrahmanyam (dead) by his Legal Representative, Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 614 of 1966, D/- 17-4-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. V. Nair, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. P. Ram. Reddy, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Parthasarathy, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) (Amendment) Act, 1956 - Section 9 - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Communal, Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1947 - Section 4 (3) and (4) - Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Transfers of lands - Forest lands - Alienation - Whether certain transfers of lands alleged to be forest lands made by 6th respondent herein become void and inoperative under Section 4 of Act - Whether any land in an estate is a forest or is situated in a forest, or as to limits of a forest, it shall be determined by Settlement Officer, subject to an appeal to the Director within such time as may be prescribed and also to revision by the Board of Revenue - Held, There is also no force in contention that unless there was a notification under Section 2 (b) of Act declaring a particular land to be forest land, a particular of the Act would be excluded - Lastly counsel contended that sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the later Act as originally enacted applied to forest lands and therefore later Act became applicable thereto - Section as it now stands did not confer any jurisdiction on Settlement Officer to determine any question as to whether any land was forest land within meaning of Act and consequently adjudication by District Judge under sub-section (4) of Section 4 was quite competent - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
MITTER, J.:- This appeal by special leave is from a common judgment and order of the High Court of Madras disposing of three Revision Applications arising out of O. P. No. 95 of 1948 filed under Section 4 (3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Communal, Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act ).
2. The central question in this appeal is whether certain transfers of lands alleged to be forest lands made by the 6th respondent herein become void and inoperative under Section 4 of the Act. The said respondent who was a big land-holder granted a patta to his wife, 7th respondent, for Ac. 100-00 of land on November 9, 1944. Another patta was similarly granted to the appellant in respect of Ac. 90-00 of land on November 25, 1944. On the same day, respondent No. 6 granted a third patta for Ac.200-00 of land to respondents 2 to 5. The Act came into force on October 25, 1947. On October 15, 1948 Original petition No. 95 of 1948 was filed in the District Court of Eluru by two ryots for a declaration that the alienations were void and did not confer any rights on the alienees. Thereafter the said petition was split into two parts, O. P. 95/1948 being directed against respondents 1 to 6 while O. P. No. 95-(a) of 1948 was directed against the 7th respondent. The petitions were disposed of by an order of the District Judge dated July 18, 1950 holding that lands covered by the pattas were forest lands and all the alienations were void and inoperative. A Civil Revision Petition was filed in the High Court of Madras by respondents 1 to 5 against the order of the District Judge. This was numbered as C. R. P. No. 22 of 1951. Respondent No. 7 filed a Miscellaneous Petition No. 9534 of 1950 in the High Court of Madras. By order dated 6th August, 1962 both the petitions were dismissed by a single Judge of the Madras High Court. This order was however set aside in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondents1 to 5 (No. 261 of 1952) wherein it was held that the petitioners as ryots had no right to maintain the petition but reasonable opportunity should be given to the State of get transposed as the petitioner. The State Government thereafter got itself transposed as the petitioner. The District Court however held that the petition was not maintainable by reason of the repeal of the Act by reason of the passing of a subsequent Act, XXVI of 1948 styled the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948. Against this the State Government filed a Revision Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh numbering 1555 of 1955. The High Court held that the dismissal of the petition on the ground of repeal of the Act was improper and that the petition should be disposed of on the merits remitted the matter to the District Judge. By a judgment dated November 30, 1960 the District Judge allowed the petition negativing the contentions of the respondent but holding that the lands were forest lands and transfers thereof were void. The appellant and others filed Civil Revision Petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which were disposed of and dismissed by a common judgment dated August 24, 1965. Hence this appeal.
3. The points urged before us by learned counsel for the appellant were: (1) The Act applied only to lands which were admittedly forest lands and the operation thereof could not be extended to lands in respect of which there was a dispute as to the nature thereof. It was argued that any such dispute could only be decided by the Settlement Officer and not by the District Judge. (2) The Act was a temporary Act and all proceedings thereunder came to an end with the repeal of the Act; and (3) A notification by the State Government describing the land as forest land was an essential pre-requisite to the application of the Act.
4. The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the alienation of communal, forest and private lands in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.