Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, GOPALRAO EKBOLE, N.KUMARAYYA
Pamidimarri Chenchulakshmma - Appellant
Versus
EStates Abolition Tribunal Nellore - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-70
Whether a patta could be granted under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act for a land which is originally tank bed land and which has fallen into disuse by the time the Abolition Act came into force.
Fact of the Case:
In W.P. No. 1308 of 1963, the petitioner, a landholder, challenged the grant of a patta to respondents 3 to 5 under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Estates Abolition Act for a land which was originally a tank bed. The petitioner claimed that the land was communal land and could not be converted into ryoti land. In W.P. No. 690 of 1967, the petitioners, who were shrotriendars, challenged the grant of a patta to the Government under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Estates Abolition Act for a land which was originally a tank bed. The petitioners claimed that the tank had ceased to be a source of irrigation and the land had been cultivated by them for many years. In W.A. No. 411 of 1969, the appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal which had allowed the Government's appeal against the grant of a patta to the appellant under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Estates Abolition Act for a land which was originally a tank bed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a patta could not be granted under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act for a land which was originally tank bed land and which had fallen into disuse by the time the Abolition Act came into force. The court held that the three classes of lands, namely, lanka lands, lands of the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, and forest lands, were specifically excluded from the purview of Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act. The court held that the purpose behind excluding these three classes of lands was to keep them at the disposal of the Government so that they could be dealt with by the State as the representative of the community, in a manner which would be most advantageous to the public at large.
Issues: Whether a patta could be granted under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act for a land which is originally tank bed land and which has fallen into disuse by the time the Abolition Act came into force.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the three classes of lands, namely, lanka lands, lands of the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, and forest lands, were specifically excluded from the purview of Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act. The court held that the purpose behind excluding these three classes of lands was to keep them at the disposal of the Government so that they could be dealt with by the State as the representative of the community, in a manner which would be most advantageous to the public at large.
Final Decision: The court held that a patta could not be granted under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act for a land which was originally tank bed land and which had fallen into disuse by the time the Abolition Act came into force. The court allowed W.P. No. 1308 of 1963 and dismissed W.P. No. 690 of 1967 and W.A. No. 411 of 1969.
( 1 ) W. P. No. 1308 of 1963 has come up before us is a Full Bench by reason of a reference made by Kumarayya, J. , (as he then was) and Madhava Reddy, J. , W. P. No. 690/67 was directed by our learned brother Krishna Rao, J. to be posted with the former petition and hence it has accompanied the former petition is coming to the Full Bench. In the same manner our brothers Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ. , directed W. a. No. 411 of 1969 to come up with the first of the Writ Petitions and that way it has also been brought before the Full Bench.
( 2 ) W. P. No. 1308 of 1963 concerns a land of Ac. 3-04 cents in extent comprised in R. S. No. 101/3 which was formerly Survey No. 48 in chintalapalem Villages, Kavali Taluk. That village was notified and taken over as an estate by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Madras Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948) on 1-7-1959. It is claimed by the Writ Petitioner that one Koti Reddy Narapareddy and she were the owners of the lands in the village, each having a half share therein. However, Narapareddy alone sold. on 21-6-1951, the entire extent of Ac. 3-04 cents to respondents 3 to 5. But, he himself made an application under Section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act to the District Collector, Nellore, on 1-4-1953 for permission to convert the Ac. 3-04 cents of land, which was described in the village accounts as Kunta Poramboke (Pond poramboke) into ryoti land. By his order of 27-11-1953 the Collector rejected the request. After the abolition of the Estates, the purchasers, viz. , respondents 3 to 5 applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 3 to 5 applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 (a) of the Abolition Act for a patta for the entire land of Ac. 3-04 cents. That officer and in further revision the Settlement Officer rejected the application on the ground that they should apply under Section 15 of the Act. In accordance therewith an application was filed and an enquiry was made under Section 15. The present writ petitioner objected to the granting of a patta on the ground that the land was tank-bed land and as such a communal land and consequently no patta could be granted in respect of it. In the alternative, she set up a claim for a patta in her own favour for half of the land in the event of respondents 3 to 5 being granted a patta. After holding an elaborate enquiry and making a local inspection, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the land in question was sand-witched in the midst of other wet lands of the ayacut and that from its situation it could not have served any communal purpose at any time. Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act was introduced only in the year 1934 and previous to that the landholder was not obliged to obtain the permission of the Collector to occupy any waste or poramboke land in an estate. In this view that Officer granted a patta to respondents 3 to 5. after a pointing out that the land had been cultivated even prior to 1934. In the appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Nellore (Viz, the District Judge, Nellore) found that the land was tank-bed by about the year 1902 but in course of time got silted up and was brought under cultivation. He found that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the land at least since the year 1939. He also opined that since Section 20-A of the Estate Land Act came into existence only in the year 1934. no land-holder was obliged to obtain permission of the Collector to occupy any waste or Poramboke land in his estate before that date. Thus, the Tribunal affirmed the conclusion of the Assistant Settlement Officer and held that respondents 3 o 5 were entitled to a ryotwari patta for the land under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act. Aggrieved by this order of affirmance of the Tribunal, the Writ petitioner has brought this writ petition praying that the order of the Tribunal gra
LAKHSHMIPATHY NAYAKAR V. STATE OF MADRAS
RAMASWAMY GOUNDAR V. RAMASWAMI GOUNDER
MEERALLI AMBALAM V. SHANMUGHA RAJESWARA SETHUPATHI
Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya Vs Paladugu Anjayya
Rajah Yarlagadda Sivarama Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Mulpuru Venkataratnamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector of Krishna
AI
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.