TOOTA VEERARAGHAVULU Vs. RAMALINGESWARA SWAMI VARI TEMPLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Appeal, which is from the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, passed by Basi Reddy, J., the controversy essentially centres round the question whether the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal West Godavari, Eluru, dated 31st March, 1961, quashed by the order under appeal of our learned brother suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record in its interpretation of clause (a) of sub-section (10) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act. That clause necessarily came up for consideration before the Tribunal because of its reference in section 12 (a) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 with which it was concerned. In fact the appeal which the Tribunal had to decide arose out of a petition under section 12 of Act XXVI of 1948. It was made by the temple as Inamdar landholder for grant ef patta of darmilainam land consequent on the notification of the village by the Government under the said Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer had granted patta holding that the deity was entitled thereto under section 12 (b) (3). On appeal the Tribunal after considering the evidence found that the requirements of section 12 W (3) were not satified and in that view it set aside the order of the Assisant Settlement Officer. The Tribunal was invited in that appeal to consider also the question whether on the evidence on record the deity would be entitled to patta under section 12 (d) of the said Act. It therefore construed the provision read with section 3 (10)(a) of the Estates Land Act and held that it would not apply to the facts of the case.

(2.) It is this construction, which has accounted for the issue of writ of certiorari, as our learned brother noticed the obvious error of law into which the Tribunal fell by reading into the 1st part of clause (a) of sub-section (10) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act, the qualification of the and part of that provision which was unwarranted. In order to appreciate the arguments we may with advantage read here the Said provisions. Section 12 (a) runs thus :-

(3.) For the purposes of the case, in fact, we are concerned only with the first limb of the said clause, namely, "all lands......which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of section 3, clause 10 (a) of the Estates Land Act.........." Section 3 (10) (a) of the Estates Land Act, which determines the meaning of" private land " readst hus :-