SRI RAJAH VELUGOTI VENKATA SESHA VARDA RAJA GOPALA KRISHNA YACHANDRA BAHADUR KUMAR RAJAH, VENKATAGIRI versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 14-08-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1959 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
SRI RAJAH VELUGOTI VENKATA SESHA 
VARDA RAJA GOPALA KRISHNA YACHANDRA 
BAHADUR KUMAR RAJAH, VENKATAGIRI 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Estates Abolition-Termination of lease-Service of notice and 
payment of compensation, if and when necessa1y-Madras Estate 
(Abolition and Convcrsio" iitto Ryotwari) Act (Madras XXVI of 
r948). s. 20. 
The principal question for determination in these appeals. 
arising out of writ petitions filed in the High Court, related to 
the validity of an order passed by the Board of Revenue (Andhra) 
terminating the appellant's lease in respect of certain state 
quarries situated in the Venkatagiri Estate, which had been 
notified under s. 3 of the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conver-
sion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXVI of 1948), under the 
second proviso to s. 20(1) of the Act, on the finding that the said 
lease was granted subsequent to July 1, 1945, an.d was for a 
period exceeding one year, without giving the appellant three 
months' notice under the third proviso to that section or provid-
ing for compensation under sub-s. (2) thereof. The appellant 
had also claimed renewal of the lease under r. 47 of the Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1949· which was rejected by the Board as well 
as by the High Court. The contention on behalf of the appellant, 
in substance, was that the words "such right" in the third 
proviso to s. 20(1) referred to the right mentioned in the second 
proviso"namely, the right created on or after July I, 1945, and 
thus made applicable to it the provision of sub-s. (2) of the section, 
and before such right could be terminated the provisions of the 
third proviso relating to notice and sub-s. (z) as to compensation 
had to be complied with. 
Held, that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant 
was without substance and must be negatived. 
The scheme of the Act was to render all rights created after 
July l, 1945, and for a period exceeding one year, ineffective and 
s. 20, properly construed, made it amply clear that its second 
proviso was a self-contained provision that rendered such rights 
void against the Government and, even if they were voidable and 
not void, the aid of the third proviso· was wholly uncalled for. 
The third proviso must be held to refer solely to termination of 
rights created before July 1, 1945· 
A. M. S.S. V. M. & Co, v. The State of Madras, l.L.R. (1953) 
Mad. n75, referred to. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
553 
The rule framed by the Madras Governor in exercise of the 
r959 
powers conferred on him by s. 67(6) and (2) of the Act could not 
-
attract the operation of the third proviso nor could it change the Raja of Venkatagiri 
true meaning of s. 20 of the Act. 
v. 
Held, further, that r. 47 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 
Stats of 
1949, which could at best insert a few terms in the lease, could Andhra Pradesh 
not apply to a case, such as the present one, where the lease itself 
stood determined under the second proviso of s. 20 of the Act 
and its terms fell with it. 
CIVIL APPELLA'IE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeals Nos. 
188 to 190 of 1958. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated Novem-
ber 20, 1957, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in 
Writ Petitions Nos. 1 of 1956, 19 and 470 of 1957. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, 
V. Vedantachari and 
K. Sundararajan, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
D. Venkatappiah Sastri and T. M. Sen for respondent 
No. 1. 
K. R. Ohowlhuri, for respondent No. 2. 
1959. August 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAS C: J.-These three appeals are directed against 
D«sC. J. 
the judgment and order pronounced by a Bench of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 20, 
1957, whereby three writ petitions, namely, No. 1 of 
1956, No. 19 of 1957 and No. 470 of 1957, which had 
been filed by the appellant and were heard together, 
were dismissed with costs. These appeals have been 
filed with certificates granted by the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh. 
The circumstances under which the three writ 
petitions came to be filed by the appellant may . now 
be narrated. It is alleged that on January 10, 1942, 
an agreement was entered into between the Rajah of 
Venkatagiri and one Sri Balumuri Nageswara Rao 
whereby the Rajah agreed to give annual leases in 
respect of certain slate quarries within his estate for 
five yea.rs in succ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.