MAGANTI SUBRAMANYAN versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 17-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
A 
MAGANTI SlJBRAMANY AN 
v . 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
April 17, 1969 
329 
B 
(J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Andhra Pri!iesh (Andhra Area) Estates Communal Forest and Private 
Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 1947-Whether impliedly repeal-
ed by Act 26 of 1948 in view of provision in preamble-Section 4 declar-
ing alienation of Communal and ForeJt Lands after 1939 to be 
viod-
Definition of 'forest lands' in s. 2lh)-Scope of. 
The sixth respondent granted vatious Patras of his lands to his wife, to 
the appellant and others in November, 1944. After the coming into force 
of the Andh'ra Pradesh (And hr a Area) Estates Communal, Forest and 
Private Lands (Prohibition df Alienation) · Act, 1947, section 4(1) 
of 
which decla~ed alienation of Communal or Forest Lands after October, 
1939, to be ~oid, a petition was filed in the District Court by two ry<>ts for 
a declaration that the alienations in the present case were void and did 
not confer any rjghts on the alienees. The District Judge allowed the 
petiti<>n holding that the lands in question were forest lands and the aliena-
tions were void. 
Revision petitions filed b<-for• a Single Judge of the High 
Court were dismissed but in a Lettei-s ~at 1 '.nt Appeal it was field that the 
petitioners as ryots bad no right to rr.aLt1tain the petition, and a reasonable 
opportunity had to be given to the State to get itself transposed as the peti-
tioner. 
The State Government was then transposed as the petitioner but 
thereafter the District Judge held that the petition was not maintainable 
by reason elf. the repeal of the Act of 194 7 upon the passing of a sub<e-
quent Act namely the Madras Estates 
(Abolition and Conversion into 
Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 
However, a revision petition against this order was 
allowed by the High Court which remitted the matter to the District 
Judge. By a judgment in November, 1960 the District Judge allowed the 
petition nogahving the respondent's contention but held that the lands 
were forest lands and their transfers were void. 
Further revision petitions 
filed by the appellant and others were dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended inter alia on behalf of the 
appellant that ( !) the Act of 1947 was a tempma·ry Act and all proceed-
ings thereunder came to an end with the implied repeal of the Act by Act 
XXVI of 1948; (2) a notification by the State Government describing the 
land as forest land was an essential pre-requisite to the application of the 
Act; and (3) the Act applied only to lands which were admittedly forest 
lands and the operation thereof could not be extended to lands in respect 
of which there was a dispute as to the nature thereof. It was argued that 
any such dispute could only be decided by the Settlement Officer and not 
by the District Judge. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal, 
(I) The purpose of the Act of 194 7 was to prohibit the alienation of 
communal, forest and private lands in estates in the Province of Madras 
and the preamble to the Act shows that it was enacted to prevent indis-
criminate alit'D.ation of such lands pending the enactlnent df legislation for 
acquiring the intt..-est of landholders in such 
estates 
and 
introducing 
ryotwari settlement therein. 
No fixed 
duration of the Act was specified 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1970] l S.CR. 
and it was impossible to hold that merely because of the contents of the 
preamble, the Act lxcame a temporary Act or that it stood repealed b; 
the enactment of the later Act of 1948 unless there were express words to 
that effect or unless there was a necessary implication. 
It is nor reason-
able to hold that the alienation of lar&e blocks of land which were render-
ed void under the Act of 1947 became aood by reason of the passing of 
the later Act. [332 BJ 
(2) The definition of "forest lands" in section 2(b) of the Act is an 
in,Jusive one and shows that :forest land' would include )not only waste 
land containing trees, shrubs and pasture lands but also any other class 
of land• declared by Government to be forest land. This does ~ot mean 
that before a piece of land could be said to be forest land there would 
have to he a notification by the Government and that otherwise the applica-
tion of the Act would be excluded. (334 CJ 
(3) Section 20(1) of the Act of 1948 as originally enac~d was substi-
tuted for another by s. 9 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion 
into Ryotwari)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.