KANCHERLA AUDINARAYANA Vs. BRANCH SETTLEMENT OFFICER KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this writ petition is whether the Settlement Officer could hold an enquiry as to the nature of a grant, notwithstanding the fact that on an earlier occasion it was decided by the Estates Abolition Tribunal that the grant in question did not comprise the whole village but only part of it. The order of the Tribunal made on the prior occasion was not questioned in any proceedings. Subsequent to that order, by the Madras Estates Land (Andhra Amendment) Act, 1956 (XXXV of 1956), section 3 (2) (d) was amended by inserting (d) (ii) and by adding the words " any hamlet or khandriga in an inam village " after the word village. Section 12 of this Act makes provision for carrying out these amendments into the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948).

(2.) By the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act, 1957 (XVIII of 1957) effect was given to these amendments by amending section 9 of the Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948) which reads as follows :- "(1) As soon as may be, after the passing of this Act and subject to the provisions of section 9-A, the Settlement Officer may suo motu and shall, on application, enquire and determine whether any inam village or hamlet or khandriga granted as inam in his jurisdiction is an inam estate or not. Prior to the amendment, the Settlement Officer had only to determine whether the grant consisted of the whole village or not and he could not go into the point whether it comprised a hamlet or khandriga.

(3.) After the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 was amended, the Settlement Officer issued a notice to the landholder in the present case to show cause why an enquiry should not be held by him under section 9 as amended. It is to quash this notice that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the matter, which was concluded, should not by reopened by the Settlement Officer. We do not think that we can give effect to this contention. Under section 9' as it stood prior to the amendment, the enquiry was to be confined to the question whether the grant consisted of the whole village or not. Whether it constituted a hamlet or khandriga was extraneous to that enquiry. The Settlement Officer had to consider the material from the standpoint whether it constituted a whole village or not. The enquiry as contemplated by section 9 after the amendment is a more comprehensive one, namely, whether what was granted was a whole village or a hamlet or khandriga. Therefore, the prior decision of the Tribunal that the inam in question was a part of the village does not preclude the Settlement Officer from further investigating into the question as to whether what was granted would constitute a hamlet or khandriga. On the earlier occasion, the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal did not apply their mind to the present controversy It follows that it is competent for the Settlement Officer to hold a fresh enquiry on the question whether the grant was a hamlet or khandriga.