PAMIDIMARRI CHENCHULAKSHMMA Vs. ESTATES ABOLITION TRIBUNAL NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 1308 of 1963 has come up before us is a Full Bench by reason of a reference made by Kumarayya, J., (as he then was) and Madhava Reddy, J., W. P. No. 690/67 was directed by our learned brother Krishna Rao, J. to be posted with the former petition and hence it has accompanied the former petition is coming to the Full Bench. In the same manner our brothers Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ., directed W. a. No. 411 of 1969 to come up with the first of the Writ Petitions and that way it has also been brought before the Full Bench.

(2.) W. P. No. 1308 of 1963 concerns a land of Ac. 3-04 cents in extent comprised in R. S. No. 101/3 which was formerly Survey No. 48 in chintalapalem Villages, Kavali Taluk. That village was notified and taken over as an estate by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Madras Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948) on 1-7-1959. It is claimed by the Writ Petitioner that one Koti Reddy Narapareddy and she were the owners of the lands in the village, each having a half share therein. However, Narapareddy alone sold. on 21-6-1951, the entire extent of Ac. 3-04 cents to respondents 3 to 5. But, he himself made an application under Section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act to the District Collector, Nellore, on 1-4-1953 for permission to convert the Ac. 3-04 cents of land, which was described in the village accounts as Kunta Poramboke (Pond poramboke) into ryoti land. By his order of 27-11-1953 the Collector rejected the request. After the abolition of the Estates, the purchasers, viz., respondents 3 to 5 applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 3 to 5 applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 (a) of the Abolition Act for a patta for the entire land of Ac. 3-04 cents. That officer and in further revision the Settlement Officer rejected the application on the ground that they should apply under Section 15 of the Act. In accordance therewith an application was filed and an enquiry was made under Section 15. The present writ petitioner objected to the granting of a patta on the ground that the land was tank-bed land and as such a communal land and consequently no patta could be granted in respect of it. In the alternative, she set up a claim for a patta in her own favour for half of the land in the event of respondents 3 to 5 being granted a patta. After holding an elaborate enquiry and making a local inspection, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the land in question was sand-witched in the midst of other wet lands of the ayacut and that from its situation it could not have served any communal purpose at any time. Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act was introduced only in the year 1934 and previous to that the landholder was not obliged to obtain the permission of the Collector to occupy any waste or poramboke land in an estate. In this view that Officer granted a patta to respondents 3 to 5. after a pointing out that the land had been cultivated even prior to 1934. In the appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Nellore (Viz, the District Judge, Nellore) found that the land was tank-bed by about the year 1902 but in course of time got silted up and was brought under cultivation. He found that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the land at least since the year 1939. He also opined that since Section 20-A of the Estate Land Act came into existence only in the year 1934. no land-holder was obliged to obtain permission of the Collector to occupy any waste or Poramboke land in his estate before that date. Thus, the Tribunal affirmed the conclusion of the Assistant Settlement Officer and held that respondents 3 o 5 were entitled to a ryotwari patta for the land under Section 13 (b) (iii) of the Abolition Act. Aggrieved by this order of affirmance of the Tribunal, the Writ petitioner has brought this writ petition praying that the order of the Tribunal granting a patta to respondents 3 to 5 be quashed,.

(3.) The land in question in W. P. No. 690 of 1967 is Ac. 72-60 cents in the village of Sarvareddipalli, Proddatur Taluk, Cuddapah District. It bears Paimaish No. 87. It is alleged that this land was originally a Dasabandham tank. In the year 1901 the lands under the ayacut of this tank were transferred to the ayacut of a new channel called Chaped Channel and the channel feeding the tank was purchased by the Government from its owners. Thus from 1901 the Tank ceased to be a source of irrigation. The petitioners, who are shrotriendars, began to cultivate portions of the tank in or about the year 1914. In 1941 an agreement was entered into between the shrotriemdars and the former ayacutdars under the tank under which the rent payable by the ayacutdars was reduced by Rupees 0-8-6 Ps. in the rupees since they were not receiving irrigation water from the tank. Thereafter it is alleged, the tank-bed was levelled up and the entire extent of Ac. 72-60 cents was cultivated. The ayacutdars had no more any necessity to draw water from the tank and in fact they completely gave up their irrigation rights in the tank by virtue of the agreement of 1941. When a notification under Section 3 of the Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) ACT XXX of 1947 was issued on 7-2-1951, these lands were included in the list of ryoti lands and an assessment of Rs. 1-4-0 per acre was fixed. However, the village was taken over on 1-10-1951 under the Estates Abolition Act. Even then the lands comprised in Paimaish No. 87 were treated as ryoti lands and included in the holding of the petitioners. But, the District Collector issued an order to the Estates Manager, Proddatur dated 1-4-1953 directing him to "expunge these lands from the holding of the petitioners on the ground that the permission of the Collector under Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act had not been obtained at the time of conversion of the tank-bed land into ryoti land. Steps under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act were also taken on 6-4-1953. The Estates Manager held that they were entitled to compensation and not to a patta. Then an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer who said, in his order dated 27-3-1954, that an application under Section 15 of the Abolition Act might be filed. Accordingly an application was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who by his ordered dated 13-2-1955 refused to grant a patta on the ground that conversion as required under Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act had not been obtained. Thereupon an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal which remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer to make an enquiry into the 1941, agreement and decide the case only after such consideration. When the matter went back the Assistant Settlement Officer, by his order dated 27-9-1956. held that the 1941 agreement was genuine and Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act did not apply to the Lands. Consequently, he granted a patta in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by this Order, the Government preferred an appeal to the Tribunal which by its order dated 21-3-1967 allowed the appeal holding that Section 20-A applies to the case and, therefore without an order under that provision the lands could not be converted into cultivable lands. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order of the Tribunal. This is opposed by the Government. Their contention is that the order of the Tribunal allowing their appeal is correct and that the land. once it is tank bed cannot be converted into or treated as ryoti land unless there was permission under Section 20-A of the Estates Land Act to convert it in to ryoti.