LexGAUDI RAMAMURTHY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H GA UDI RAMAMURTHY & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. August 26, 1966 [K. SUBBA RAo, C. J. AND J. M. SHELAT, J.] Madras Ealates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), s. 3(b) and Regulation XXV o/ 1802, s. 4-Estate vesting In Govermnent under notification issued under Estat~s Abolition Ac1-Cer- Nln lands gronled be/ore pernta11'!nt Settlement partly 111 lieu o/ services and partly /or rent-Such lands whether excluded from estate under Regu- lation o/ 1802. The appellants and respondents 2 w S were owners of Jagga111peta estate in the East Godavari Dis net of Andhra Pradesh. The ·vantari Muttah', a piece of land about 400 acres in area, was granted to their predecessor in interest in return fQr services as 'vantarlu' or 'foot ser- \"8llts' long before the permanent settlement. After the passing of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 dispute arooe whether the land formed part of the Jaggampeta estate for if it did not, the Act would not apply to it. After various stages of litigatioo a Division Bench of the High Court decided against the appellants. They came to this Court with special leave. It was contended on behalf of the '"l'Pellants that the said Muttah was granted to their predecessor-in.interest before the permanent aettle~ mcnt by the then Zrunindar for public services subject to a payment of favourable rent, that, subsequently, the services were discontinued, but the grant was continued subject to the payment of favourable rent, that at the time of the permanent settlement the said Muttah was excluded from tbe asselli of the Zamindari and that therefore the said Muttah· was outside "the scope of the notification issued by the Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. On behalf of the rf8pondent State it was urged that •he grant was subject to the payment of the full assess- ment, that the said assessment was paid partly in cash and partly by personal services to the Zrunindar, that at the time of the Permaneet Settlement the said Muttah was included in the assets of the Zamindari and that as it was a part of the Zamindari the Government at the time of the Inam Settlement did not take any steps to enfranchise the same. HEID : (i) Under s. 4 of the Regulation XXV of 1802 the Govern- ment was empowered to exclude it'lcome from lakhiraj lands l.e. lands exempt from payment of public revenue and of all lands paying only favou-able quit rents, from the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the ·Permanent Settlement. If the lands fall squarely within the said two categories, there is ·a presumption that they were excluded from the assets of the Zamindari. But if the grant of land was subject to per- formance' of personal services to the Zamindar or subject to the pav- ment of favourable rents and also performance of personal services to the Z3mindar, there is no such presumption. Indeed the presumption i• the t in such a case the income from the land was not excluded from the a;,;sets of the Zamindari. The reason for the rule is that in one case the personal servioe are equated with the full asse'1sment and in the other • 181 J82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !J967] I S.C.R. tho favourable rent toge1her wilh. tbe personal services is equaled wilb A full assasmeot. If the Zammdar m oo.e shape or another was getting the fuD W1Se&Omen1 on the lands tliere was no reason why the Government would havo foreF.• its revenuo by excluding such lands from tho assets ot the Zamtndan. [185 FJ Maliaboob SarafarajfiVant Sri Raja ParthasaraJhy Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindari Garu v. The Secretary of State, (1913) J.L.R. 38 Mad. 620 and Secretary of Stare '" Rajah Vasireddy, A.l.R. 1929 Mad. 676, referred B to. (ii)· The grant in the prosent case wa• a prc-sett!emen1 grant The land was granted to the Vantarlu subjec1 to the payment of' favourahlc rent and also subject to tho performanco of personal services to tho Zamindar. The Government either before tho permanent settlement or subsoquent thereto never claimed a right to rosume the same. Indeed ii was the Zamindar who was giving remissions to the Vantarlu whenever C their services were not required. There is a presumption that such a land was not excluded from the assets of the Zamindari and the evidence adduced in the case not only did not rebul that pr.,,;umption bul also to some extent supported it. Tho Divis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.