LexMUDDADA CHAYANA versus KARNAM NARAYANA AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
201
MUDDADA CHAYANA
A
v.
KARNAM NARAYANA AND ANR. ETC.
'
February 14, 1979
B
(D. A. DESAI AND Q. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
k
~
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act (A.P. Act 26 of 1948), Sections 56(1)(c) 55, 11 and 15-
•
Whether operation of Section 56(1) (c) is limited only to the purposes of sec-
~
lions 55 ·and 56(1)(a) ond (b)-lnterpretation of a statute.
,..,
Uilder Section 56(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Estates
(Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, "where, after an estate
is notified, a dispute {1.<rises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for
any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c)
who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is, th>! dispute shall be decided
l>y the Settlement Officer". Section 56(2) of the Act provides for an appeal
to the Estates Abolition Tribunal agtdnst the decision of the Settlement Officer
whose decision was final and not to be questioned in any court of law.
The petition filed before the Tahsildar, Pathapatn<lm under section 13 of
the Andhra Tenancy Act by the appellant, for the eviction of the respondents
c
D
on the ground of default in i:tiyment of rent was dismissed on the ground,
among others that the respondents had occupancy rights in the
land. The
E
appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer Tekkali \Vas dismissed
on the
ground that the petition for eviction wafj not maintainable since the question
as to who was the lawful ryot in respect of lany holding in an estate had to
be decided by the Settlement Officer under Section 56(l)(c) of the Andhra
Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act
and that the decision of such question was within the exclusive competence of
the Settlement Offi'Cer.
In the revision petition filed before it under Art. 227
F
~f
the Constitution, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
agreed
·with
the
,.._ r
appellate order.
Disn1issi11g the appeal by special leave the Court.
•
~
HELD : l. Interpretation of a statute contextual or otherwise must further
G
and not frustrate the object of the statute. [207 DJ
•
•
The object of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is to protect ryots_ and not to leave them
i~ wilderness.
When the Act provides a machinery in Section 56(1) (c) to
discover who the lti.wful ryot of a holding \Vas, it is not for the Court to
denude the Act of a11 meaning by confining the pruvisions to the bounds of
H ·
Section 55 and 56(1) (a) and (b) on the ground of "contextual interpreta·
tion". [207 C-DJ
14-196 SCl/79
r
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 3 s.c.R.
A
2. The scope of section 56(1) (c) cannot be restricted to mean that it waa
B
c
controlled by Section 55 and 56(1)(a} and (b) and that an enquiry into the
que&tion as to who was the lawful tyot of a holding under that section was
permissible only for the purpose of identifying the person liable to pay the
arrear of rent which had accrued in respect of the holding before the taking
over of the estate. [204 E-G]
...
..
It would indeed be anomalous and ludicrous and reduce the Act to an
-
oddity, if the Act avowedly aimed at reform by the conferment of ryotwari
--4
pattas oo ryots and the <!ibolition of intermediaries is to be held not to cont.a.in
any provision for the determination of the vital question as to who was the
*
lawful ryot of a holding. Section 56(1)(c) is indeed such a provision. A con•
textual interpretation may not be quite appropri~,te in view of the fact that
..
Sections 55 and 56(l)(a) and (b) occur under the heading 'Miscelluneous',-l._
Any other interpretation would lea,d to conflict of jurisdiction and the
imp1e~
r---
raentation of the Act would be thrown into disarray. (206 F, 207 A, B-C]
i..
Munuswami Naidu (died) & Ors., v. R. Venkata Reddy and Ors., A.LR.
1978 A.P. 200 (F.B.); approved.
D
3. The Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act is a self contained Code 'in
E
F
G
H
which a provision is olso made for the adjudication of various types of disputes
arising after an estate is notified by specially constituted Tribunals.
On gene~
ral principles, the special Tribunals constituted by the Act must necessarily be
held to have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes entrusted by the statute
to them for their adjudication. [204 D-EJ
Appanna v. Sriramamurthy, [1958] 1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.