Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,BHIMASANKARAM, JJ.
Madras (now Andhra) State
Versus
Kalahasteeswaraswamy Temple
Writ Appeals Nos. 50 and 91 of 1953, against order of Venkatarama Ayyar, J. in C. M. P. 36 of 1951
Decided On : 03-03-1955
MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT - SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2)(B), 3(2)(C) - MADRAS ACT XXVI OF 1948 - SECTIONS 2(3), 2(15), 2(16), 3(B) - SEPARATE REGISTRATION OF VILLAGE UNDER MADRAS ACT I OF 1876 - EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING PERMANENT UNDER-TENURE - NOTIFICATION OF VILLAGE AS ZAMINDARI ESTATE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The village of Kalahasti, part of the impartible estate of Kalahasti, was granted as inam to a temple in 1791-1792. In 1802, peishkush was fixed for the entire Kalahasti Zamindari, including the inam village, without excluding pre-existing inams. In 1932, the village was separately registered under Madras Act I of 1876. In 1950, the State of Madras notified the village as a zamindari estate under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The temple filed a writ petition challenging the notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 did not put an end to the pre-existing permanent under-tenure. The village, therefore, continued to be held as an under-tenure notwithstanding such registration. The court further held that the village was not a zamindari estate as defined under Madras Act XXVI of 1948 because it was excluded from the definition of zamindari estate as an estate held on a permanent under-tenure. The notification issued by the State of Madras notifying the village as a zamindari estate was, therefore, erroneous.
Issues: 1. Whether the separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 put an end to the pre-existing permanent under-tenure? 2. Whether the village was a zamindari estate as defined under Madras Act XXVI of 1948?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 did not put an end to the pre-existing permanent under-tenure because: (a) The object of Madras Act I of 1876 was to make better provision for the separate assessment to land revenue of portions of permanently settled estates alienated by sale or otherwise, and it did not purport to affect the rights inter se between the alienor and the alienee. (b) The decisions of the courts on the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802 and Madras Act I of 1876 supported the view that the Act did not operate on the title of the parties or the rights inter se between them. 2. The court held that the village was not a zamindari estate as defined under Madras Act XXVI of 1948 because: (a) The definition of zamindari estate in Madras Act XXVI of 1948 excluded estates held on a permanent under-tenure, and the village in question was held on a permanent under-tenure. (b) The separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 did not change the nature of the tenure from a permanent under-tenure to a zamindari estate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification issued by the State of Madras notifying the village of Kalahasti as a zamindari estate.
SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is an appeal against the order of Venkatarama Ayyar J., allowing an application filed by the trustee of Sri Kalahasteeswaraswamy temple for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus prohibiting the State of Madras from taking possession of the village of Kalahasti.
2. The village of Kalahasti formed part of the ancient Zamindari of Kalahasti, which is one of the impartible estates included in the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). In the year 1791-1792, the Rajah of Kalahasti granted the village in inam to the temple. At the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, peishkush was fixed in regard to the entire Kalahasti Zamindari not by taking into account particular assets of the Zamindari, but by computing military service. See Secretary of State v. Raja of Venkatagiri, ILR 44 Mad 864 : (AIR 1920 PC 168) (A), and Navaneetha Krishna v. Ramanujulu Chetty, 54 Mad LW 120 : (AIR 1942 Mad 56) (B). The effect of that process was that the pre-existing inams, including the inam of the village of Kalahasti, were not excluded from the assets of the Zamindari. The inam of the village of Kalahasti, therefore, continued to be held on a permanent under-tenure under the Zamindar. In the year 1932, the said village was separately registered under Madras Act I of 1876. On 12-12-1850, the State of Madras notified the village of Kalahasti as a zamindari estate under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The result of that Notification was that the said estate was abolished and the Government became the owner thereof. The writ of Mandamus was filed on the ground that the State of Madras had no jurisdiction to notify the said village as a Zamindari estate. Venkatarama Ayyar J., held on a consideration of the relevant provisions, that the village of Kalahasti was not a zamindari estate and that the notification dated 12-12-1950 was erroneous. The State of Madras preferred the abovesaid appeal against the said order. After the Constitution of the Andhra High Court, the said appeal has been transferred to this Court.
3. The learned Advocate General contended that the legal effect of the separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 was to put an end to the pre-existing tenure under the Zamindar and to convert it into an estate as defined under Sec. 3 (2) (b) of the Madras Estates Land Act, directly liable to pay peishkush to the Government, whereas Mr. Vedanthachari, learned counsel for the respondent, maintained that the said registration had no such effect, that it was only done for the limited purpose of separately allocating the proportionate peishkush payable on the village and that the village continued to be held as an under-tenure notwithstanding such registration.
4. The relevant provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act and Madras Act XXVI of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) may now be read :
MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT.
Section 3 (1) :
"Estate" means
(a) any permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari.
(b) any portion of such permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari, which is separately registered in the office of the Collector.
* * *
(c) any portion consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified above in clauses (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a permanent under-tenure.
MADRAS ACT XXVI of 1948.
Section 2 :
(3) "Estate" means a zamindari or an under-tenure or an inam estate,
(15) "Under-tenure Estate" means an estate within the meaning of Sec. 3 (2) (e) of the Estates Land Act.
(16) "zamindari estate" means
* * *
(ii) an estate within the meaning of Sec. 3 clause 2 (b) or 2 (c) of the Estates Land Act after excluding therefrom every portion which is itself an estate under Section 3 clause 2 (c) of that Act.
Section 3 :
With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act :
* * *
(b) the entire estate...... shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances.
The aforesaid provisions
AI
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
