The provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings before the Settlement Officer or the Assistant Settlement Officer under sec. 15(1) of the Abolition Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are the cultivators of the schedule lands situated at Nagallavasa, Vizianagaram taluk which became an estate after the amendment of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1936 and notified and taken over as an inam estate by the Government in the year 1959 under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred as to “the Abolition Act”. After taking over of the estate, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srikakulam, under the provisions of sec. 15 of the Abolition Act, started a suo moto enquiry. In that enquiry respondents 1 to 3 herein contended that the lands were their private lands and therefore they were entitled to a ryotwari patta under the provisions of sec. 13 of the Abolition Act. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the lands were ryotwari lands and therefore the ryotwari patta should be made in their names under the provisions of sec. 11 of the said Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer after recording the oral evidence produced by both the parties and after a consideration of the documentary evidence produced on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, by his order dated 18th February, 1963, held that the lands covered by schedule ‘B’ which are in dispute before us now, are the private lands of respondents 1 to 3 as defined in sec. 3(10)(b) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. He accordingly allowed their claim under sec. 13(a) of the Abolition Act. The petitioners, aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer, carried the matter in appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) at Vizag. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 14th November, 1968 in T.A.S. No. 54 of 1963, dismissed the appeal and held that the lands in question are the private lands of respondents 1 to 3. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is a conflict between the judgment of this court as to the application of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Periannan v. A.S. Amman Kovil]1. The argument is that a Division Bench of this court consisting of Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ, in writ appeal No. 17 of 1968 decided on 27th November, 1969 held that the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court is no longer good law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Chidambaram v. Santanramaswami]2 whereas another Division Bench of this court consisting of Narasimham, J. (as he then was) and Parthasarathi, J., in Writ Appeals Nos. 93 of 1970 and batch decided on 20th November, 1970 held that there was no incompatibility between the decisions of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perianan's case and the decision of the Supreme Court in Chidambaram's case. In view of this conflict between the two decisions, the matter may be referred to a larger Bench for resolving the conflict. It was also brought to our notice that our learned brother, Obul Reddi, J., when another matter of this nature came up before him for consideration, referred the matter to a Division Bench observing that there was conflict between the decisions in Writ Appeals Nos. 17 of 1968 and 93 of 1970 and batch. We have carefully gone through the judgment delivered in Writ Appeals Nos. 17 of 1968 and 93 of 1970 and batch and we do not find any conflict between the two decisions. In the first place, in the judgment in writ appeal No. 17 of 1968 no reference at all has been made to the Full Bench decision in Periannan's case. The learned judges have confined themselves to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chidambaram's case shows that in their opinion that decision had impliedly over-ruled the Full Bench decision in Periannan's case. There is nothing in the judgment to show that the learned judges had taken that view of the matter. The learned counsel for both the parties confined themselves to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chirtdambaram's case and the