EVULAPALLI RAMAMURTHY SASTRY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely short one and as the counsel on each side agree, it is really one of first impression. The question which falls for my consideration is : What is the meaning of revenue accounts' of the Government and of what period these revenue accounts have to be looked into in an enquiry under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, herein-after called the Act. The circumstances which give rise to this question are as follows.

(2.) I would mention the facts of C.R.P. No. 1769 of 1959 only. In the other C.R.P., the same question arises for determination although the facts are slightly different. This judgment, however, will cover both the revision petitions. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Kovvur, initiated proceedings suo motu under section 3 (2) of the Act. A notice in pursuance of the Rules made under that Act was served on the owners for raising such objections as they desired to raise. The petitioners before me took objection that the lands mentioned in the schedule to the Notification are only inam lands in a zamindari or ryotwari village and not inam lands situated in any inam village. They filed certain documentary evidence. On the basis of the documentary evidence available in the record the Special Deputy Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the village Timmarajupalem is an inam village. He held that the village might have been carved out of a zamindari village at the inception of the grant, but it ultimately evolved itself and acquired the status of a full-fledged inam village and is now administered as a separate village in revenue accounts. The petitioners, being aggrieved by that order, went in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kowur. Their appeal was dismissed on 17th October, 1959. The Revenue Divisional Officer concurred with the opinion of the Special Deputy Tahsildar that Timmara jupalem village is an inam village. It is this view of both the Tribunals that is assailed before me in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The principal contention of Mr. Kuppuswamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the tribunals have reached the conclusion only on the basis of 'A' Register of Kowur taluk and failed to take into account the other revenue accounts with the consequence that relevant and important evidence has been ignored in reaching the conclusion. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the nature of the enquiry contemplated by section 3 of the Act. The section as far as it is relevant for my enquiry is in the following terms :