YEGIREDDI YERAKAMMA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR PARVATIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question of law that arises for decision in this writ petition relates to the interpretation of the provisions of section 3 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, (hereinafter called " The Act").

(2.) The material facts may briefly be stated : The village of Polinaidu Valasa in Parvathipuram Taluk of Srikakulam District being hamlet of a zeroyili village, was held to be not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srikakulam, in an enquiry under section 9 of the Estates Abolition Act. That decision was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. In a suo motu enquiry by the Inams Tahsildar under section 3 of the Act, the lands in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners have been declared as inam lands in zeroyiti village by the Inams Tahsildar by his order passed exparte in S.R. No. 108 of 1961, dated 25th December, 1961. It is averred in the affidavit that no notice relating to the enquiry was served on the petitioners, but the notices are alleged to have been served on persons who are not really tenants in occupation of the lands on the date of the enquiry, and the decision of the Tahsildar was never communicated to them or to any other tenant in that village as required by sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. In the course of the eviction proceedings initiated by the inamdars against the petitioners, they came to know of the order made by the Tahsildar on 25th December, 1961, declaring the lands in the village of Polinaidu Valasa as inam lands in zeroyiti village. They have obtained a certified copy of the order and preferred an Appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvatipuram, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Sri Ramamurthy, for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the appeal preferred by his clients under section 3 (4) of the Act was well in time as the decision of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Bobbili, in S.R. No. 108 of 1961, dated 25th December, 1961, was not communicated to them until they applied for and obtained a certified copy of that decision. This claim of the petitioners is opposed by the respondents contending inter alia that the decision of the Special Deputy Tahsildar was in fact communicated to the petitioners.