AMALAKANTI NATASIMHAMURTHY Vs. DEVATA KAMARAJU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amalakanti Narasimhamurthy, as sole petitioner, filed writ petition No. 172 of 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court be pleased to call for the records and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) East Godavari at Rajahmundry in T.A. No. 49 of 1959. There were four respondents in the writ petition. Of these, the fourth respondent was the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada who had passed the original order dated 11-4-1959, the third respondent was the Estates Abolition Tribunal which had confirmed the order of the fourth respondent in T.A. No. 49 of 1959. Respondents 1 and 2 were private parties in whose favour the orders of respondents 3 and 4 concerned had been passed. Our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbota, J. dismissed that writ petition with costs of respondents 1 and 2. Thereupon the writ petitioner filed this writ appeal.

(2.) The fourth respondent held a sou motu enquiry under Section 15(1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of 1948) in respect of certain lands situated within the geographical limits of Kotanandur village. Respondents 1 and 2, who were petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in that enquiry, put forward claims that they had acquired the item by inheritance from their ancestors and that they had leased it out to the father of the writ petitioner in 1934 by a lease deed (Ex. P-3). The writ petitioner "?s mother had executed lease deed subsequently in 1944 and in 1947 and continued to be in possession of the land. The writ petitioner, who was the sole respondent in the proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer (R-4), laid claim to patta for the land on the ground that the suit land was estate land whereas the writ respondents 1 and 2, who were petitioners 2 and 3 before him (R-4), put forward claim as landholders on the basis that the property (hereinafter referred to for convenience as, dispute property) was a pre-settelement inam not forming part of zamindary estate. Both sides let in oral and documentary evidence. Respondents 1 and 2 deposed P. Ws. 2 and 3 before the Assistant Settlement Officer and the writ petitioner deposed as R. W. 1. In the enquiry, the Karnam of the village was examined as C. W. 1. The Assistant Settlement Officer decided in favour of the writ respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) For convenience, we are referring to the parties in this judgment by their denomination in the writ appeal and in the writ petition.