NARAYANASWAMY Vs. LAKSHUMU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records and to issue, a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment in A. S. No. 48 of 1952 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The Miscellaneous Settlement Officer, Bobbili, took action suo motu and issued notices under Section 9 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 to determine whether Naguru in Parvathipuram taluk is an Inam Estate as defined in that Act. It was contended before him by the Inamdars that the village is not an Inam Estate, while the ryots contended that the village is an Inam Estate. The Settlement Officer held that Naguru is not an 'estate' as denned in Section 3 (2) (d) or the Madras Estates Land Act and that therefore it cannot be an "Inam Estate".

(2.) The tenants of Naguru preferred an appeal under Section 9(4) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 against the order of the Miscellaneous Settlement Officer to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and remanded the case to be disposed of afresh after giving a finding on the question whether the Inamdars have kudivaram right also in the village. It is contended before me that the view taken by the Estates Abolition Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and is opposed to the judgment of the High Court in S. A. No. 2416 of 1949. The facts as they emerge from the judgment of the Tribunal and the documents filed before it are these: Thurakanaiduvalasa is a hamlet of Naguru and it was granted in the year 1717 A. D., while Naguru was granted in the year 1770 by a later grant which grant also confirmed the earlier grant of Thurakanaiduvalasa in 1717. It was contended before the Estates Abolition Tribunal that Thurakanaiduvalasa being a hamlet of Naguru and it having been granted in 1717,the subsequent grant of Naguru, excluding Thurakanaiduvalasa should be deemed to be of a portion of the village and it cannot therefore be the grant of a whole village. The Tribunal negatived this contention and held that Naguru is an 'estate' as defined in Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, as amended in 1945. The reasoning by which the Tribunal reached this conclusion is that the Explanation 1 to Section 3 (2) (d) provides that the grant of a named or whole village would bring the village within the purview of an 'estate' notwithstanding the fact that there were minor inams existing by the date of the major grant, and therefore, if Thurakanaiduvalasa is considered to be a portion of Naguru it would certainly come under the definition of a 'minor Inam' like any other inam which was in existence by the date of the major grant of the village of Naguru and therefore Explanation 1 to Section 3 (2) (d) clearly covers this minor inam also.

(3.) In S. A. No. 2416 of 1949, Satyanarayana Rao J. held that Thurakanaiduvalasa is not a grant of a whole village or of a named village and that therefore it is not an 'estate'. The question as to whether Naguru, the parent village, is an 'estate' or not did not fall for consideration by him. The hamlet of Thurakanaiduvalasa which was granted in the year 1717 is of the extent of about 708 acres. In Janakirama Sastri v. J. Gopalam '. Rajamannar, C. J., and Somasundaram J., held that where the grant is of a fairly large bulk of land which was defined as a khandrika or a certain number of khatties in a hamlet; the grant being of a portion of the village it is not an ' estate.' A village consists of not only the parent village but also its hamlets. A hamlet is therefore a portion of the village. If a hamlet is a portion of the village, the parent village must also be a portion of the village because it does not comprise the entirety of the area which can be designated as a village. Thurakanaiduvalasa was granted in 1717, and under the grant of 1770, Naguru, the parent village, was granted and the grant of 1717 was confirmed. So the grant of 1770 was partly a fresh grant and partly confirmatory of the earlier grant of 1717. It therefore follows that the entire village came under the possession of the Agraharamdars under two grants of different dates and not under one grant. If what was granted under each of the grants is not a whole village, section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act can have no application. The logical conclusion must therefore be that the grants of 1717 and 1770 being grants of portions of a village, neither of them is an ' estate' under section 3 (2) (d).