The Chief Justice.- This revision petition originally came on before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., but has been referred to a Bench because the learned Judge thought that the questions raised in it were of considerable importance and the matter was barren of direct authority.

The petitioner filed a suit in the District Munsif’s Court of Vizianagaram to eject the contesting respondents from the lands in suit and to recover past and subsequent profits from them. It was inter alia pleaded by the defendants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act would govern the case. Both the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge have upheld this plea of the defendants and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court.

The origin of the title of the plaintiff to the suit lands is not in dispute. It appears from the Inam statement and the proceedings of the Inam Commissioner as recorded in the Inam fair register that the then Rajah of Vizianagaram one Sri Raja Pusapati Viziaramaraju granted in mark to Poosapati Ramachandraraju lands in two village, viz., Korukonda and Nerellavalasa, yielding an income of Rs. 750 sometime in 1791. Subsequently at a partition among the sons of the original grantee, the lands in these two villages fell to the share of three of his sons. In or about 1813 the Raja of Vizianagaram took these lands and in exchange granted to the inamdars portions of zeroyti lands in the village of Kanimeraka yielding an income of Rs. 750. These are the suit lands. It is common ground that the village of Kanimeraka was part of the permanently settled estate of Vizianagaram. These lands were the subject of enfranchisement proceedings at the time of the inam settlement in 1863. It was evidently brought to the notice of the Inam Commissioner that the lands being enjoyed at the time by the Inamdars were lands which their predecessors had obtained in exchange for the pre-settlement grants in favour of the original grantee. The enfranchisement was made presumably in the belief that the lands obtained by exchange were held under the same tenure as the lands given in exchange. The question for decision in this revision petition is whether the petitioner can be deemed to be a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If the suit lands are treated as forming part of a pre-settlements minor inam validly enfranchised by the Government in 1863 then obviously the Madras Estates Land Act would have no application to the case.

Admittedly the village of Kanimeraka was a zeroyti village which was included within the Vizianagaram zamindari. Did these lands which are situated in that village cease, for any reason, to be part of the permanently settled estate because of the exchange in 1813. In our opinion, the nature of the lands did not change because of the exchange. The principle which should govern a case like this has been authoritatively enunciated by the Judicial Committee in Parthasarathi Appa Rao v. Bommadewara Satyanarayana1. In that case, part of a permanently settled estate was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The proprietor was entitled to compensation which might have been paid in cash, or if he consented, there could have been a reduction of the peishkush on the estate. But the proprietor requested-and his request was complied with - that he might be given some Government lands in another district. By order of the Collector, the new lands were transferred to the proprietor and they were even entered in the register as zamindari lands instead of Government lands as formerly. The question which fell for decision was whether these lands formed part of a permanently settled estate. Their Lordships held that even after they were transferred to the proprietor, they did not become part of the permanently settled estate. Their Lordships pointed out that unless there was a formally effected settlement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document