Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, NARASIMHAM
Rajah Velugoti Rangamannar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-65
ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 1(4), 2(7), 2(15), 2(16), 3(D) - NOTIFICATION OF VILLAGES AS ZAMINDARI ESTATES - VALIDITY - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for declaration that notifications made under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act with regard to the plaint schedule villages, were invalid. The trial was confined to notifications with regard to 10 villages only, viz., Inagalore, Mannavram, Govindaraopalli, Polie Beemava-ram, Kandaragunta, Empedu, Ammacheruvu, Bassiddummallu and Vampalli, as zamin estates.
Finding of the Court:
The notifications of the villages in question as zamin estates cannot be supported by rejecting the case of the plaintiffs that they were not under-tenure estates. The learned District Judge has not dealt with the case from the right perspective and sufficient material has not been placed before the Court to show that the notifications of the villages in question as zamin estates were correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the villages detailed in the plaint schedule under-tenure estates? 2. Whether the subsequent notifications No. 20 dated 12-11-1953 and No. 234 dated 13-7-1957 relating to plaint schedule villages are illegal or otherwise invalid for all or any of the reasons mentioned in the plaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The onus of proof lies on the State Government to show that the villages in question are zamindari estates under the Act. 2. The notifications have to be supported by clinching evidence.
Final Decision: Judgment of dismissal of the suit set aside and suit remanded for fresh disposal according to law.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of dismissal of the suit, O. S. 8 of 1957, by the District Judge, Chittoor. This suit was laid for a declaration that the notifications made under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act with regard to the plaint schedule villages, were invalid. After the suit was filed, the State Government issued revised notifications classifying some of the plaint schedule villages as under-tenure estates under the Act. The trial was therefore confined to notifications with regard to 10 villages only, viz. , Inagalore, Mannavram, Govindaraopalli, Polie Beemava-ram, Kandaragunta, Empedu, Ammacheruvu, Bassiddummallu and Vampalli, as zamin estates. The plaintiffs questioned the validity of the notifications, as, according to them, each of the villages was an under-tenure estate: under the Act, whereas the Government notified them as Zamin estates.
( 2 ) ISSUES relevant to the said contentions were tried as issue 2 and additional issue 1 framed thus:"issue 2: Are the villages detailed in the plaint schedule under-tenure estates? Addl. Issue: 1. Whether the subsequent notifications No. 20 dated 12-11-1953 and No. 234 dated 13-7-1957 relating to plaint schedule villages are illegal or otherwise invalid for all or any of the reasons mentioned in the plaint?"
( 3 ) THE learned District Judge upheld the notifications finding that the said villages were not shown to be under-tenure estates under the Act.
( 4 ) IT is contended before us that the learned District Judge has not dealt with the case from the right perspective and further that sufficient material has not been placed before the Court to show that the notifications of the villages in question as zamin estates were correct. The learned counsel has further urged that the notifications in question as zamin estates cannot be supported by rejecting the case of the plaintiffs that they were not under-tenure estates. We consider that there is sufficient force in these contentions.
( 5 ) THE learned District Judge has mainly relied on the description of the villages as sirkar villages in Strattens report as supporting the notifications of the villages in question as zamin estates. It is the plaintiffs case that the villages in question situated within the Kalahasti zamindari were mam villages prior to the permanent settlement and separately registered under Madras Act 1 of 1876. The plaintiffs claimed that these were under-tenure estates as defined under the Act.
( 6 ) THE learned District Judge rejected the contention that they were permanent under-tenure estates under the Act as they were re sumable inams. With regard to Empedu and Ammaacheruvu villages, he observed that a fourth part of each of these villages was resumed. With regard to Bassiddumallu, he observed that the whole of the inam was resumed. These observations were made with reference to the extracts from the inam Fair Registers, Ex. , B. I (of Em-pedu), Ex. B. 2 (of Ammacheruvu) and Ex, B. 3 (of Basiddumallu ). With regard to the other villages, the teamed Judge observed that they were Amaram grants and that as such grants were resumable, they could not be permanent under-tenures. Thus these conclusions were arrived at on a scrutiny of Strattens report where these villages were described as sirkar villages and the extracts from the Inam Fair Registers relating to Empedu, Ammacheruvu and Bassiddunallu only.
( 7 ) TWO questions arise: Firstly, whether the villages in question can be taken as zamindari estates under the Act by rejecting the plaintiffs case that they are under-tenure estates; and secondly whether the description in the Strattens report is all the information available to support the notifications,
( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader supported the finding of the learned District Judge on a twofold basis: Firstly, he argued that there were no inam estates within the meaning
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.