SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
M.Jaya Satyavathi Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.12275 OF 2018
Decided On : 02-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. ROY REDDY
For the Respondent: K MADHAVA REDDY

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14 - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Inams Abolition Act, 1956 - Section 3(3), 8 - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 75, 8(2), 6(a)(ii), 43, 80 - Government Grants Act, 1895- Section 3 - Wards Act,1890 - Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 - Section 59- Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017- Section 4 - Government grants to take effect according to their tenor- Protection of life and liberty and equality before law - Summary procedure for eviction and recovery of rents -Empowers all High Courts of India to issue the writ -Whether proceedings initiated by respondent under Section 59 of Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, are justified and appropriate –Held, Court reach same result by applying another well-known rule of construction that general provisions yield to special provisions - Suggestion does not find support in either principle or authority – Rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and judges but springs from common understanding of mend and women that when same person gives tow directions, one covering a large number of matter sin general and another to only some of them, his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all rest, earlier direction should have effect - Writ petitioner would indicate several transactions having been registered in respect of subject land, after transfer of ownership in favour of writ petitioner – Provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895, which are relied upon in writ petition, was repealed by Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017, with effect, by Parliament - But Section 4 of repeal Act, contains a savings clause - Petition allowed.

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 and 2; and the standing counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the Memo No.17032/ENDTS.II (1)/2015 dated 12.03.2018 of the respondent No.1 issuing show cause notice for cancellation of the order in G.O.Ms.No.275 Revenue II (Department) dated 29.03.1993 and direction to submit an explanation/representation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said proceedings.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in Survey No.275/F in an extent of Ac.7-04 cents of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District was once part of the Vizianagaram Samstan (Estate) and had been notified under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and the Inamdar in relation thereto was the respondent No.3-S.V.L.N.S.V.Devasthanam in whose favour a ryotwari patta has been granted by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 14.08.1996. The said order dated 14.08.1996 reads as under:

    “On Smt.Maridu Jaya Satyavathi filed a petition for grant of ryotwari patta in S.No.275/F for an extent of Ac.7-04 before the Mandal Revneue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) stating that her late husband was granted patta by the Estate Collector for Vizianagaram vide patta No.243. The then Mandal Revenue Officer in his 3(3) Order AIAC 8/77 dated 25.5.1987 held over this extent. She has claimed for a ryotwari under Section 7A of the I.A.Act for the above extent.”

4. In the statutory enquiry under Section 3(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam recognised the right of the petitioner over the land in question inasmuch as the petitioner’s husband Venkanna Dora had been lawfully inducted with permanent occupancy rights vide patta No.243, dated 10.07.1942 by the then Collector, Vizianagaram District. The same was reflected in the order dated 10.07.1989 passed under Section 3(3) of the above said statute. It had been taken note of therein that the Collector of the Vizianagaram District had issued Patta No.243 in D.Dis.No.1895 dated 10.07.1942. Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 reads as under:

    “8. Right of Permanent Occupancy to tenants in imams lands held by Institutions in Inam Villages:

(1) In the case of an inam land held by an institution in an inam village the tenant who is declared to be in occupation of the inam land on the 7th January, 1948, under Section 5, or if there is no such tenant, the tenant in occupation of the land on the date of commencement of this Act, shall have a right of permanent occupancy in that land and the said right shall be heritable and shall be transferable by sale, gift or otherwise.”

5. This statutory provision was amended by Act No.16 of 2013 (published in the State Gazette on 26.09.2013) by inserting the following proviso:

    “Provided that in case of inam land held by a charitable or religious institution or endowment, no tenant shall have a right of permanent occupancy of the land.”

6. He further contended that after issuance of ryotwari patta in favour of the respondent No.3 on 14.08.1996, the original name stood extinguished. The Melvaram rights (ownership rights) of the land were transferred by the Government in favour of the petitioner by issuing G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 29.03.1993, under Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. By virtue of such a grant, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property and the respondent No.3 no longer has any right therein, having collected the amount as fixed, towards the value of the land on 09.08.1984. Further the respondent No.3 also issued a no objection certificate dated 15.06.1995 in the matter of conveying the ownership rights of the land

                                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                            1
                                            2
                                            3
                                            4
                                            5
                                            6
                                            7
                                            8
                                            9
                                            10
                                            11
                                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                            supreme today icon
                                            logo-black

                                            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

                                            qr

                                            Scan Me!

                                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                                            whatsapp-icon Back to top