VELURI SIVARAMA SASTRI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J., in two connected writ petitions Nos. 553 and 571 of 1954.

(2.) The admitted facts are simple and may be stated. Gorantla Agraharam was admittedly a grant of a whole village made by the Vaddera King in the year 1133 A.D. in favour of one Malladi Somanadha Somayajulu. Subsequent to the grant, there was a partition between the grantee and his younger brother Singarajupriyulu, and in that partition the village was divided into southern part and northern part. These two parts were shown in the subsequent document as southern division and northern division. The southern division fell to the share of Somanadha Somayajulu and the northern division to Singarajupriyulu. As Singarajupriyulu died without issue, the northern division was resumed by the grantor. But it was re-granted in the year 1949-50 by one Raja Venkatadri Naidu in favour of Veluri Narayana Somayajulu. But the southern division remained in the family of the original grantee. At the time of the Inam Commission, the two grants were confirmed and two title deeds were issued, one for the northern division and the other for the southern division.

(3.) After the Estates Abolition Act came into force, the Inam Settlement Officer initiated enquiry and declared that the Agraharam was not an estate within the meaning of section 2 (7) of that Act. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the Agraharam was an inam estate within the meaning of the Act. Satyanarayana Raju, J., before whom the writ petitions came up, held that it was not established that there Was a patent error on the face of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, and on that ground dismissed the petitions. The owner of the northern division filed Writ Appeal No. 13 of 1956, and the owner of the southern division filed Writ Appeal No.14 of 1956 against the order of the learned Judge dismissing their applications. Mr. Vedantachari, the learned counsel appearing for the present inamdar of the northern division, contends that as the said division was resumed and regranted to Veluri Narayana Somayajulu by Raja Venkatadri Naidu in the year 1949-50, the grant was not of a whole village, and therefore was not an estate within the meaning of section 2 (7) of the Estates Abolition Act. Section 2 (7) of the Abolition Act defines an "inam estate" to mean "an estate within the meaning of section 3, clause (2)(d), of the Estates Land Act, but does not include an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. The material portions of the definition of an estate in section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act before it was amended by the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act XVIII of 1936 r.uns thus :- 'Estate ' means- (d) any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudiwaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, or any separated part of such village ".