PEDDINTI VENKATA MURALI RANGANATHA DESIKA IYENGAR AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 12-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
.. 
PEDDINTt VENKATA MURALI RANGANATHA 
DESIKA IYENGAR AND ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Jnstitutious and Endown1ents Act, 
19/l7 : 
Explanation 11 to Section 2(22) and Section 76--Constitutional validity 
of. 
A.P. !nams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 : 
A 
B 
c 
Religious Institution--Te11ants, Archakas, S€!rviceholders and En1ploy-
D 
ees of-Land held 011 the basis o.f ryotwari patta granted under Inanis 
Abolition Act-Divesting right, title and interest held in land-bnplied repeal 
of the !nams Abolition Act-Removal of .foundation of judgments of High 
Court held not valid-Section 76 wul Explanation 11 to section 2(22) of 1987 
Act held unconstitutional. 
Interpretation of Sratutes 
Repeal-Presumption against in1p/ied repeal-Ba.\·is of-Legislature 
has co1nplete kno~vledge o.f pre-existing laws . 
In this writ petition, the constitutional validity of Explanation II to 
Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and 
Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 has been chal-
lenged. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that by grant of 
ryotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) loams (Aboli-
E 
F 
tion and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 the Archakas, service 
G 
holders or employees covered under the Act became absolute owners of 
the property. The legislature, therefore, was devoid of competence to 
make the law, employing non-obstante clause, to take away their vested 
rights without compensation. On behalf of the State it was contended 
that since the legislature abolished hereditary rights of archakas, service 
H 
439 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996J l S.C.R. 
A 
holders or other employees and introduced payment of salary for them, 
it was competent to enact Section 76 and Explanation II to the definition 
of 'endowment' under Section 2(22) divesting their title and vesting the 
same in the endowment or institution as the case may be. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
On the questions : 
(i) whether the legislature, by a side-wi.nd, without suitably amend-
ing the Inams Abolition Act, as interpreted by the High Court, repealing 
it, could directly nullify the said law laid by the Court and divest under 
Section 76 of the Act, the vested right and declare that the land was not 
covered by said ryotwari patta or shall not be deemed to have been 
transferred and could treat such persons as encroachers? 
(ii) Whether Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the 
1987 Act were constitutionalJy valid? 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. Without amending the law under Inams Abolition Act and 
without properly removing the foundation of the judgments rendered by 
the High Court, the legislature sought to destroy the effect of the law in 
Inam Abolition Act on erroneous belief or assumption that it did not bind 
the religion or charitable institutions or endowment or that the holder of 
land did not acquire title or no patta was granted to him and the land was 
still with the institution and treated the occupant as encroacher. The 
legislation founded on such erroneous assumption does not have the effect 
of depriving the holder of the land of their vested rights acquired under 
the loams Abolition Act. The legislature has plainly misfired. Accordingly, 
F 
Section 76 and Explanation II to Section 2(22) of the Act to that extent are 
invalid and unconstitutional. [453-A-C] 
2. The Inam Abolition Act is a complete code in itself and gives 
• 
over-riding effect to any law inconsistent there-with creating vested 
rights over the former inam lands which ceased to exist on the grant o( 
G 
ryotwari patta. Being a ryotwari land held by a tenant, an archaka, a 
service holder or other employee after grant of ryotwari patta, holds the 
land with absolute right to the extent of 1/3 land as an independent and 
absolute owner. The pre-existing relationship with the government was 
created by imposition of ryotwari assessment. Section 12 fastens the 
H 
liability to pay ryotwari settlement to the Government. Thereby, the 
.. 
j.. 
"' 
} 
' 
' 
.. 
P.V.M.R.D. IYENGAR 11 GOVT OF AP. 
441 
whole of inam service existing prior to the grant of ryotwari patta ceased 
A 
to have any statutory effect. The liability to render service ceased. 
Thereby independently, the service holder became entitled to hold the 
land in his own right as a holder of lan

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