Back
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, JJ.
Sri Kanchumarthi Pardhasarathi and others - Petitioner
Versus
The Estate Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) West Godavari at Eluru and others-Respondents.
W.P. No. 1009 of 1963
Decided on : 06-10-1967
The burden of proof lies on the landholder to establish that the land in question is a private land by proving personal cultivation for 12 years prior to the commencement of the Estates Land Act, 1908. However, the standard of proof may be higher in cases where the land is known to be ryoti land at its inception.
Headnote:
ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - PRIVATE LAND - CULTIVATION FOR 12 YEARS - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION - EVIDENCE - SECTION 12(A) AND (B) - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, landholders of the Dhumanthigudem Zamindari estate, sought a patta for certain lands, claiming they were private lands. The Assistant Settlement Officer and the Tribunal rejected their petition, holding that they failed to prove direct cultivation for a continuous period of twelve years prior to the commencement of the Estates Land Act, 1908. The petitioners challenged this order in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tribunals erred in not considering whether the lands in question were known to be ryoti lands at their inception, which would have required a higher standard of proof for the petitioners to establish their claim as private lands. The court also held that the tribunals erred in declining to consider the petitioners' alternative claim under Section 12(b)(iii) of the Estates Abolition Act, which allowed for the grant of pattas for lands that had been cultivated by the landholder from July 1, 1939, and had been in their direct and continuous possession since then.
Issues: 1. Whether the tribunals erred in not considering whether the lands in question were known to be ryoti lands at their inception. 2. Whether the tribunals erred in declining to consider the petitioners' alternative claim under Section 12(b)(iii) of the Estates Abolition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'private land' in Section 3(10) of the Estates Abolition Act requires the landholder to prove personal cultivation for 12 years prior to the Act. The standard of proof may be higher in cases where the land is known to be ryoti land at its inception. 2. Section 12(b)(iii) of the Estates Abolition Act allows for the grant of pattas for lands that have been cultivated by the landholder from July 1, 1939, and have been in their direct and continuous possession since then. The tribunals erred in declining to consider the petitioners' claim under this provision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders of the Tribunal, and directed the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal and decide it on the present record under both subsections of Section 12 of the Estates Abolition Act.
ORDER:
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, West Godavari dated 29-7-1963 in A.S. No. 238 of 1960 confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Eluru dated 29-2-1960.
2. The essential facts in order to understand the contentions raised before us are that the petitioners are the landholders of the Dhumanthigudem Zamindari estate situate in Kovvur Taluk, West Godavari District. The said estate belonged previously to Suramoudi family. The entire village which included the private lands, was mortgaged by S. Apparao, the head of the family to the father of the petitioners under a mortgage deed dated 2-9-1911. The village including the private lands were auctioned in a court sale in the execution of the decree on the foot of that mortgage. The father of the petitioners purchased the village including the private lands and took delivery of the same oft 9-2-1926. Since then it is alleged that the lands were being cultivated by the after of the petitioners, and after him by the petitioners. The lands in question were being enjoyed as private lands all along these lands were never claimed by any one to be ryoti lands. The estate of Dhumantigudem was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rvotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) and was taken over on 7-9-1950. The petition lands, which are private lands, however continued in the possession of the petitioners. It is alleged that the Government took further steps on the basis that the lands in question are private lands. The compensation for the estate was computed without reference to the income derived from these lands. The Government assessed these lands and collected the assessment every year from the petitioners.
3. On 26-1-1951, the petitioners made an application under Section 12 of the Estates Abolition Act for the grant of a patta to them for the petition lands consisting of twenty-two items. The Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dated 18-4-1952 rejected the petition. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal; the Tribunal also rejected the appeal in so far as items 16 and 22 were concerned. It, however, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry in respect of the other items and directed the disposal of the matter in accordance with law.
4. After the case was thus remanded, it came up before another Assistant Settlement Officer. Since the said Officer was related to the petitioners, he refused to hear the case and a representation was accordingly made by him. The previous Assistant Settlement Officer, whose order was set aside and the ease remanded, had then become the Settlement Officer. He withdrew the case to his own file and disposed it of on 4-8-1954 by rejecting the petition. The petitioners again carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal was filed on 2-10-1954. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer as passed without any jurisdiction and remanded the case by its order dated 17-1-1958 for a fresh disposal to the Assistant Settlement Officer.
5. After remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded the evidence of the Karnam. His view was that the remand order had limited the scope of the enquiry. He therefore considered the case under section 12(a) of the Estates Abolition Act and declined to go into the contentions raised by the petitioners under Section 12(b) of the said Act. He rejected the petition on 29-2-1960 holding that the petitioners have failed to prove that they were personally cultivating the land continuously for twelve years prior to the commencement of the Estates Land Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.
6. The petitioners took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreeing with the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the ap
