1970 Supreme(AP) 71

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Madduri Venkataratnam - Appellant
Versus
Mangu Ramadas - Respondent
Decided On : 03-16-70

The scope of enquiry under Sections 11, 15 and 56 of the Estates Abolition Act is separate and distinct and the subject-matter is different.

Headnote:

ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - SECTIONS 11, 15, 56 - RES JUDICATA - DECISION OF SETTLEMENT OFFICER AND TRIBUNAL IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 15 - WHETHER OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 56 - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY UNDER SECTIONS 11, 15 AND 56 - DISTINCTION - DECISION IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 15 - WHETHER BINDING ON PARTIES IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 56 - SECTION 64-A OF THE ACT - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed to be a ryot in respect of lands covered by R. S. Nos. 47,52/1 and 52/3 of an extent of about Ac. 59-00 which are post-settlement inam lands situated in Suryaraopet village, which formed part of the erst while Pithapura, Zamindari Estate, which was notified and taken over by the Government on 7-9-1949 under the provisions of the Madras Act, now the Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, Act No. 26 of 1948, (hereinafter called the Act ). The Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli conducted a suo motu enquiry under Section 15 (1) of the Act in S. R. No. 15 (1) 2496/58, to determine the nature, history of the lands and to consider the claims of the land-holders for a Ryotwari patta. The land-holders claimed ryotwari patta under Section 12 of the Act on the footing that they were their private lands. At a later stage in the said enquiry, the land-holders set up a plea that the lands were leased out to one mangu Narasimbarao Panatela, that there was an exchange of patta and Mutchilika between the land-holders and the said Narasimhrao Panatela in the year 1910, that the Raja of Pithapuram filed O. S. No. 35/23 on the file of the Court of the District Music, Kakinda, for enhancement of rent. A compromise was effected and an annual rent of Rs. 39-9-0 was fixed, that the said Narasimbarao, dies in the year 1942 leaving behind him his daughter-in-law one Mangu Venkatanarasamma as a sole surviving heir, as her husband predeceased her, that the said Venkata Narasamma is the sister of the land-holders, that one of the land-holders M. Seshagiri Rao, was managing narasamma, that she was entitled to a patta as a ryot and that the petitioner is only a tenant of the said Venkatanarasamma. The petitioner herein stated that he had been in possession of the lands as a ryot under the landlords since the year 1934, that he was shown in the village accounts as the person in occupation eversince that year, that he was entitled to a patta under Section 11 of the Act, and that the land-holders claimed for a patta under Section 12, was not tenable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal in the previous enquiry under Section 15, that Venkatanarasamma and after her death, her adoptive son the first respondent was entitled to a ryotwari patta, really fell under Section 11 and was outside the scope of enquiry under Section 15 of the Act. Even otherwise there was admittedly no decision under Section 56 with regard to who the lawful ryot of the holding was and therefore the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal in the provisos enquiry under Section 15 would not have the effect of res judicata so as to preclude the present enquiry under Section 56.

Issues: Whether the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer in S. R. No. 15/2495/58 dated 23-5-1959 as confirmed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in A. S. 44/59 by its order dated 13-8-1960 would operate as res judicata, and Whether the decision of this court in W. P. No. 709/60 as confirmed in W. A. No. 72/61 would operate as res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scope of the enquiry under each of the aforesaid sections is separate and distinct and the subject-matter is different. Under Section 11, the questions to be determined are, whether a particular person is ryot, whether the lands in question are ryoti lands whether the said lands are not either Lanka lands or the lands in respect of which the land-holder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta, and if the lands are lanka lands, whether the ryot or his predecessors-in-title have been in occupation of the same continuously from 1-7-1939. The enquiry under this section does not contemplate deciding a dispute between two rival claimants for a ryotwari patta, as ryots. Section 15 on the other hand contemplates examination of the nature and history of the lands in respect of which a land-holder claims a ryotwari patta under Sections 12,13 or 14 as the case may be and a decision with regard to such a claim. The claim of a ryot for a patta cannot be gone into in an enquiry under Section 15 of the Act. Section 56 of the Act contemplates decision of disputes of entirely different kind, viz. (a) Whether any rent is in arrear or; (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or; (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is. The nature Sec. 56 is entirely different from that of Section 11 or 15 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the finding of the Estates abolition Tribunal, in T. A. No. 1/66, that the previous decisions of the Assistant Settlement Officer, in S. R. 15/249/58 dated 23-5-1959 as confirmed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in A. S. No. 44/59, operates as res judiciata and restored the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in S. R. 56 (1) 57/61 E. G. dated 21-11-1965, declaring the petitioner as the lawful ryot granting a ryotwari patta to him.