Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO
Rama Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Ramadas Naidu - Respondent
Decided On : 01-25-77
ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - SECTION 11 - SECTION 56 - RYOTWARI PATTA - ENTITLEMENT - DETERMINATION OF LAWFUL RYOT - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - FULL BENCH DECISION - REVIEW OF ORDER - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - DELAY IN FILING REVISION PETITION - CONDONATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for a ryotwari patta in respect of 15 acres of land, claiming it as his ancestral property. The application was purportedly filed under Section 56(1) of the Estates Abolition Act, alleging that the land was wrongly included in the holding of the respondents due to fraudulent entries in the Village Accounts. The Assistant Settlement Officer initially rejected the claim, but on appeal, the Estates Abolition Tribunal remanded the case for fresh enquiry. After a full-fledged enquiry, the Settlement Officer granted a patta in favor of the petitioner under Section 56(1) of the Act. The respondents appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal as infructuous. However, following a Full Bench decision holding that Section 56(1)(c) has no relation to the determination of any question under Section 11, the respondents filed a petition to review the earlier order of dismissal. The Tribunal granted the review and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Settlement Officer's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the Settlement Officer's order based solely on the Full Bench decision. The court found that the substance of the petition and the order was under Section 11(a) of the Act, which deals with the entitlement of a ryot to a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands properly included in his holding. The reference to Section 56(1) was either by inadvertence or due to the then prevailing law. The court further held that the respondents should not be penalized for the inadvertent reference to Section 56 and that their rights should be safeguarded. Therefore, the court directed that if the respondents filed a revision petition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the delay would be condoned, and the revisional authority would receive and dispose of the petition in accordance with law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the Settlement Officer's order based solely on the Full Bench decision, which held that Section 56(1)(c) has no relation to the determination of any question under Section 11. 2. Whether the substance of the petition and the order was under Section 11(a) of the Act, which deals with the entitlement of a ryot to a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands properly included in his holding. 3. Whether the respondents should be penalized for the inadvertent reference to Section 56 and whether their rights should be safeguarded.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the Settlement Officer's order based solely on the Full Bench decision. The court found that the substance of the petition and the order was under Section 11(a) of the Act, which deals with the entitlement of a ryot to a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands properly included in his holding. The reference to Section 56(1) was either by inadvertence or due to the then prevailing law. 2. The court further held that the respondents should not be penalized for the inadvertent reference to Section 56 and that their rights should be safeguarded. Therefore, the court directed that if the respondents filed a revision petition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the delay would be condoned, and the revisional authority would receive and dispose of the petition in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal reviewing its earlier order and allowing the appeal, and directed that if the respondents filed a revision petition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the delay would be condoned, and the revisional authority would receive and dispose of the petition in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS case demonstrates in a very telling manner how a decision changes the course of law as it had obtained, which affects the course of litigation and the rights and liabilities of the parties. The difficulty in this case which we shall presently refer to, arises on account of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Muttayya v. Gopala Krishnayya, (1973) 2 APLJ 209: (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85 ).
( 2 ) THE matter arose in the following manner. An extent of about 15 acres of land is in R. S. No. 160 in Edavanivaripalli, hamlet of Nelakuntla Village. It formed part of the erstwhile Zamindari of Bangarupalayam. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for ryotwari patta in respect of this land of 15 acres. He purported to file it under Section 56 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act. In the petition he alleged that the land was his ancestral property for which the erstwhile Zamindar granted a patta in favour of his father in the year 1942. But at the time of survey and settlement, the Village Officer fabricated the Village Accounts and made fraudulent entries in the Village Accounts and obtained pattas in favour of the respondents. It may be noted that the original respondents in the petition were the vendors of the present respondents. The claim for Ryotwari Patta was dealt with by the Asst. Settlement Officer who rejected the claim of the petitioner by his order dated 10-2-1965. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor in A. S. 2/66. By order dated 27-8-1966, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal. The case was enquired into afresh and another Asst. Settlement Officer in his proceeding D/- 21-1-1967 granted Patta in favour of the petitioner. This time the vendors of the present respondents took it on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and after further enquiries, the Tribunal remanded the matter for further enquiry by order dated 21-9-1967. The Tribunal gave a specific direction while remanding the matter, that proper correlation between the Faimash number and Survey number should be made and also the actual extent of the old Patta should be fixed. The Tribunal also directed that the present respondents who purchased the land from the then respondents, should be impleaded as parties. Thereupon the matter went back to the Settlement Officer, Nellore. A regular enquiry was held before him. All the persons were impleaded as parties and they figured as respondents 1 to 7. Witnesses were recalled and examined, and the respondents themselves adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thus, a full-fledged enquiry went on before the Settlement Officer. After full enquiry and consideration of the matter that Officer by his order dated 14-6-1970 directed that a Ryotwari Patta be granted in favour of the petitioner for R. S. 160/2, which was correlated to Faimash No. 212/1 and 2, measuring 15 acres. The Settlement Officer also purported to give his direction under Section 56 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He also mentioned that an appeal against that order lay before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor, within 60 days from the date of that order. It is manifest from what we have said that the claim for Ryotwari Patta was in substance one under Section 11 of the Act. Since there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as to the question in whose holding the land should be included, they were also impleaded and an enquiry was held as to in whose holding the land in question was. Evidently, there was no dispute whether the land was ryoti or not. The question centered round the correlation of the old Faimash Number with the present R. S. Number, the actual extent of the land and in whose holding the land ought to be included. Because there was a patent provision under Section 56 (1) providing for a decision as to the lawful ryot in respect of a holding, the pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
