LexHOTA VENKATA SURYA SIVARAMA SASTRY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'I 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 535 one a part of the other. Two independent institutions legally cannot, Lxcept in the manner known to law, be amalgamated into one institution by developing merely sentimental attachment between them. This argument was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge, and the High Court went wrong in accepting it. Before we close we must make it, clear that by this judgment we have not in any way intended to express our view in the matter of honours that are customa.. rily shown to one or other of the parties in these appeals in the temple of Athinathalwar. In the result we hold, agreeing with the District Judge, that the suits were not maintainable in the civil court. The appeals are, therefore, allowed with costs throughout. Appeals allowed. ROTA VENKATA SURYA SIVARAMA SASTRY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. IC SARKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Abolition of Estates-Enactment providing for State taking over estates by notification-Part of estate outside the operation of enact- ment-Legislation extending its operation-Notifications in respect of estate, each part separately-Legality-Madras Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951 (Regulation 4 of 1951), s. 2-M adras Estates (Abolition and Conver- sion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras 26 of 1948), ss. 1(4), 3, 25, The areas in question which were parts of two estates belonging to the appellants, called Gangole A and Gangole C, were situated in what was known as the Godavari Agency tract which was governed by the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, By s, 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935, no Act of the Pro- vincial Legislature was applicable to certain areas in which the Godavari Agency was included, unless the Governor by public Sri Sinna Ramanuja jeer v, Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao ], April z8. r961 Sivaran1a Sastry v. State of Andhra I'radesh 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] notification so directed. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was enacted in 1948, and on August 15, 1950, the Government of Madras issued a notifi- cation under s. 1(4) of the Act by which, among other estates, Gangole A and Gangole C in their entirety were purported to be taken over, specifying September 7, 1950, as the date on which the vesting was to take place. But as no action as contemplated bys. 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935, had been taken to render the Madras Act of 1948 applicable to the Godavari Agency tract, only ports of the Gangole estates were within the operation of that Act, while there were portions of the estates which were outside its purview and operation. When this legal situation was noticed another notification was i>Sued on Septem- ber 5, 1950, by which the areas in question were excluded from the SCOJ>e of the notification dated August 15, 1950. In exercise of the power under para 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Con- stitution, Madras Regulation IV of 1951 was passed on Septem- ber 8, 1951, by which, inter alia, the Act of 1948 was made applicable to the areas in which the two Gangole estates were situate with retrospective effect from April 19, 1949· On Janua- ry 14, 1953, the Government of Madras issued a notification vesting those portions of the Gangole estates to which the Act of 1948 was extended. The appellants challenged the legality of the notification on the ground that the various provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, showed that the Act contemplated the taking over of estates as a unit and not in parts, while what the Government had done in the present case was to deal with the two estates of Gangole A and Gangole C as if each one of them were really two estates, one that which lay in the G.odavari Agency tract and the other outside that area, and had issued notifications in respect of these units separately. Held, that the first notification dated August 15, 1950, as modified by that dated September 5, 1950, was valid and effec- tive in law to vest the portion of the estate to which it related in the State Government. Held further, that the notification dated January 14, 1953, was equally valid. The action taken by the Government in issuing the said notification was in conformity with the scheme of the Act of 1948 that the entirety of the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.