P KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. KOLASANI KOTI VEERABHADRACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother, justice Gopal Rao Ekbote (as he then was) given in W. P. No. 1188 of 1962 with regard to Arepalli Agraharam, Narasaraopet Taluk, Guntur District. The matter has arisen under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 (herein after referred as "the Abolition act"). The short question involved is whether the judgmsnt in A S. No. 18 of 1952 given by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram, which became final, holding that the inam village, Arepalli Agraharam is not an "inam estate" as defined under section 2 (7) of the Abolition Act on the ground that, though the grant was of a whole village, it was not confirmed by the Government by one title deed but by different title deeds on different dates, bars a fresh enquiry into the question whether the village would not be an inam estate by reason of the amendment of section 3 (2) (d) of the madras Estates Land Act, 1908, which added Explanation 1-A to it and consequently has become part of the definition of "inam estate" as defined under section 2 (7) of the Abolition Act, as "inam estate" as defined there-udder means an estate within the meaning of section 3, clause 2 (d) of the madras Estates Land Act.

(2.) The Abolition Act was enacted for the purpose of abolishing estates and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such estates. There are several categories of estates as defined under section 3 (2) of the Madras estates Land Act. In the present case, we are concerned with the definition of one category of those estates as defined under clause (d) of subsection (2). This definition was amended by Act No. XXXV of 1956 therein after referred to as the Amendment Act of 1956). Before this amendment Act, section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act so far as it is relevant for our purpose stood thus: '3 (2) 'estate' means (a). . . . . . (b). . . . . . . (c). . . . . . . ' (d) any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, not withstanding that subsequeat to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees of the successors in title of the grantee or grantees. Explanation (1) : Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, the area which forms the subject matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes. Explanation (II) :. . . . . . . Explanation (III) :. . . . . . . After the amendment Act of 1956 the definition is as under : '3 (2) 'estate' means : (a). . . . . . . (b). . . . . . . . (c). . . . . . . (d) (i) any inam village, or (ii) any hamlet or khandriga in an inam village, of which the grant as an inam has been made, confirmed or recognised by the the word 'british' was omitted by the Adaptation Order, 1950) Government notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant such village, hamlet or khandriga has been partitioned among the grantees, or the successors in title of the grantece or grantees. Explanation (I) : Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, hamlet or khandriga in an inam village, the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be 'an estate notwithstanding that i't did not include certain lands in the village, hamlet or khandriga (the words 'in an inam village' were subsequently omitted by Act XVI of 1957 with retrospective effect from 711948) of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes. Explanation (I-A) : An inam village, hamlet or khandriga in an inam village granted in inam, shall be deemed to be an estate, even though it was confirmed or recognised on different dates, or by different title deeds, or in favour of different persons. Explanation (l-B) : :. . . . . . . Explanation (2) :. . . . . . Explanation, (3) :. . . . . . . ' in order to appreciate the question involved in the controversy the facts of the case may be stated thus : The appellants are inamdars of the inam village, Arepalli Agraharam, in question. Respondents 1 to 4 are tenants in the village. The 5th respondent is the Assistant Settlement Officer, ongole, the 6th respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh and the 7th respondent is the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Guntur, The appellants an interested in maintaining that the village is not an estate while the respondents 1 to 4 are interested in contending that it is an estate, which is liable to be abolished under the Abolition Act, in which case they would be entitled to ryotwari pattas for the lands in their occupation as provided under the Abolition Act. After the enactment of the Abolition Act in the year 1948, as provided under section 9 (4) of the Abolition Act, the Settlement Officer, Vijayawada, institued a cou motu enquiry in S. R. No. 7 of 1949 for determining whether arepalli village is an estate within the meaning of section 2 (7) of the abolition Act. As already mentioned above, under section 2 (7) of the abolition Act 'inam estate' is defined as meaning an estate within the meaning of section 3, clause (2) (d) of the Madras-Estates Land Act. Both the contending parties adduced evidence before. the Settlement Officer in the enquiry held by him. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the Settlement Officer by his decision dated 15-7-1950 held that the grant in question did not comprise of the whole village but comprised only part of the village and consequently the village is not an estate within the me in ing of the Madras Estates Land Act, Aggrieved by that decision, the tenants preferred an appeal before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaran (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal') in A. S. No. 18 of 1952. IB the appeal, the Tribunal by its judgment dated 25-11-1952 found that the grant was of a whole village. It. however, agreed with the conclusion of the settlement Officer that the village is not an estate on the ground that the grant was confirmed by the British Government on different dates and consequently it is not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the madras Estates Land Act. This conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Madras High Court in Somasundarara v. State of Madras which took the view that though the grant consists of the whole village or a named village, as per definition in section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act it would not be an estate if it was not confirmed by the British Government by means of a single title deed and the confirmation was by more than one title deed in favour of different individuals. This judgment of the Tribunal became final as provided under section 9 (6) of the Abolition Act, no steps having been taken to get it set aside. Subsequently the decision Somasundaram v. State of madras was over ruled by a Full Bench decision of the Madras High court in Bhavanarayana v. Venkatadu wherein it was held that as per the definition of 'estate' under section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Lands act when once the grant was of a whole village or a named village as defined therein, it would be an estate provided the grant was confirmed or recongnised by the British Government and it does not matter if portions of the original grant happened to be in the possession of different individuals and separate title deeds happened to be issued in favour of those individuals.

(3.) Even after this Full Bench decision no steps have been taken either for a riview of the Judgment of the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Full beach or by way of taking the matter to the High Court in a writ petition to get it set aside. While the matters stood thus, the Amendment Act of 1956 introducing explanation I-A to section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act came to be enacted. After Explanation I-A has been added, the Assistant Settle meet Officer, Ongole, again took up suo motu enquiry in S. R. S E. G. 9-2-1958 with regard to the same village on the ground that the decision in Somasundaram v. State of Madras] 1 has since been over-ruled by the full Bench decision and the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, has been amended by Act XXXV of 1956 to include in the definition of 'estate' an inam village even though it was confirmed or recognised on different dates or by different title deeds or in fovour of different persons in order to determine whether the village is an inam estate or not within the meaning of the abolition Act as amended. In that enquiry, by an order dated 9-3-1959 the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the village is an 'inam estate' within the meaning of the Abolition Act as amended Aggrieved by the is order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appellants carried the matter to the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge,) Guniur. The Estates abolition Tribunal agreed with the conclusion of the Assistant Settlement officer and dismissed the appeal. Both the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal found that the grant was of a whole village and it is not a hamlet or khandriga and though it was not confirmed by one title deed and it was done in more than one title deed, it would be an estate within the meaning of Explanation I-A added to section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act by the Amendment Act of 1956. On behalf tandtbe appellants, it was contended before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, guntur, that the Assistant Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire once again and for a second time into the question whether Arepalli agraharam is an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the madras Estates Land Act as there was a prior enquiry held by the Settlement officer, Vijayawada, where it was held that it is not an estate and in the appeal preferred to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram, in a. S. No. 18 of 1952 it was confirmed and this decision of the Tribunal had become final. The Estates Abolition Tribunal negatived this contention by holding that the decision in Somusundaram v. State of Madras was good law till the Amendment Act of 1956 as the Full Bench decision in bharanarayana v. Venkatadu Madras, P. 415, did not over-rule it as such and the observations made in the Full Bench decision are in the nature of obiter dicta and therefore the necessity had arisen to find out whether the village is Inam estate or not on account of its enlarged definition by reason of the addition of Explanation I-A to section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates land Act. It is to assail this view taken by the Estates Abolition Tribunal the appellants have filed the writ petition out of which this writ appeal has arisen.