LexCHIGURUPATI VENKATA SUBBAYYA & ORS versus PALADUGA ANJAYYA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
172
CHIGURUPATI VENKATA SUBBAYYA & ORS •.
v.·
PALADUGA ANJ'AYYA & ORS.
January 24, 1972
(K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D: G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908), "· 20A and 189, and lttm 6,
Part B of ScMdule-Collecto1's order urider s. 20A-WMn affects th•
comn1unal use of lands-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, when ba"ed.
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of
1948), ss. 11 and 56-Power of Settlement Ofjicer to grant pat/a wilh res-
pect to communal lands-Decision of Settlement Officer, when final.
B
c
A suit by the respondents for a declaration that certain lands were
communal lands was decreed by the High Court in appeal. In appeal to
this Court, it was contended that: (I) ihe Collector held under s.-20A of
the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, that the lands were no longer required
for the purpose for which they were originally intended; (2) the first
appellant had been in possession of the lands after obtaining a grant from
the Zamindar; ( 3) after the abolition of Estate .under the Estates Abolition
Act, 1948, the lands were granted to him by the Estates Manager; (4)
D
during the pendency of the suit, the Assistant Settlement ()fficer granted
a patta to him under •· 11 of the Aholition Act; (5) the decision of the
Aslistant Settlement Officer was· final under s. 56 of the Abolition Act;
(6) the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under s. 189(1) of the. Estates
Land Act; and (7). that under s. 3 of the Abolition Act, the communal
rights were abolished.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) Under s. 20A of the Estates Land Act. before the chi·
lector can order di-sion of the use of any communal land, he should first
dec1are that the land is no longer required for any of the purpceea re-
ferred to ins. 3(16) (a) and (b), then direct by order in wrltlllf that the
land be used for any other specified communal purpose, and if it is not so
require<!,· then it may be converted into ryotwari land or landholder's
ryoti land according as the reversionary right vested in the Government
~ the landholder. In tho present case, the Collector, apart from mat.Ing
tlle order -that the lands were no longer requireit for the oriaiiial purpooe,
did not make any other order in writing. {178 G-H; 179 A·BJ
(2) In view of ss. 20 and 20A of the Estates Land Act, the Zaniindar
did not have any right to deal with the communal lands. [176 D-E]
(3) The order of the Estates Manager is inelfective becaUIO it procee.i..
od on the .erroneous assumption that the lands had already been converted
into ryotwari lands. [179 O.D]
F
G
( 4) The lands in dispute are not Janka lands, nor were they declared
to be ryoti lands either under the Abolition Act or the F.stab!s Land Act
The Assistant Settlement Officer has no power to convert communal land
into ryoti land. Therefore, he has no competence under s.
11 · '1f the
Abolition Act to grant the ryotwari patta. fl80D-BJ
·
H
Yalathar Moopananri v. Board of Revenue 1966 (1) M .L.J. approved,
.·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
C!IlGURUPATI v. PALADUGA (Hegde, J.)
l 7 3
(5) Under s. 56 of the Abolition Act, the decision of the Settlement
Officer is made final only with respect to matters referred to in s. 5&(1)
but the question whether the lands in dispute continued to be communal
lands does not fall within its scope. [181 B-C]
(6) Under s. 189(1) of the Estates Land .Act the jurisdiction of the
civil courts is taken away only in respect of suits or ·applications of the
natnre specified in Parts A and B of the Schedule to the Act. Item S of
Part B of the Schedule 'refers to a decision of the Collector under s. 20A·
(!),but, in the present case, there is no such order in writing. [181 F-0]
(7) Under s. 3 of the Abolition Act, the lands vest in the Government,
but the rights of tlie community over the lands were not taken away.
Under the Act, only the rights created by the principal or other laod holder
were abrogated, but the rights of the community over the lands were not
such rights. [182 D-E]
CJ.VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. 556 of 1967.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment ,and decree dated
August 29, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second
Appeal No. 644 of 1962.
'
_ -
R. Vas11dev Pillai and P. Kesava Pillai, for the appellants.
K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for respondents
Nos. 1 to 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
This is an a,ppeal by special leavExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.