GOPAJOSYULA SURYAKANTHAMMA Vs. LOKAVARAPU SANYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, dated 22nd January, 1962, in Tribunal Appeal No. 5 of 1961 by which the petitioner was denied a ryotwari patta in respect of Survey No. 251/2 situated in the village of Pydipala, Narasipatnam taluk, Visakhapatnam district in Kotagurutla Zamin estate. The facts leading to the institution of this petition are briefly these : The Assistant Settlement Officer instituted a suo motu enquiry Under section 15 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the matter of granting ryotwari pattas to Srimathi Gopajosyula Rajamma in respect of R.S. No. 284/1 (extent Acs. 2-52) and Srimathi Gopajosyulu Suryakanthamma in respect of R.S. No. 281/2 (extent Acs. 2-46), the fields locally known as Revadi and Bandamadi, respectively. Notices prescribed under the rules framed under Section 15 of the Act were published in the village both by beat of tom-tom and by affixture at conspicuous places in the village. Notices were also served on parties. In the said enquiry, the tenants of these lands were also examined. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Srimathi Gopajosyula Rajamma; but held that the tenants of lands were entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 11(a) of the Act and directed the issue of patta accordingly. He held further that Srimathi Gopajosyula Suryakanthamma was entitled to a ryotwari patta Under section 11(a) of the Act and directed the issue of a ryotwari patta accordingly. The tenants of Srimathi Gopajosyula Suryakanthamma carried the matter in appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal under section 15 (2) of the Act. By an order dated 22nd January, 1962, now impugned which is referred to supra, the Estates Abolition Tribunal held that the tenants of Gopajosyula Suryakanthamma were entitled to a patta under section 11(a) of the Act.

(2.) The short ground on which the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer and that of the Tribunal are questioned is that they had mixed up the enquiries under section 15(1) and section 11(a) treated them as one enquiry and directed the issue of pattas and that this method of disposal is opposed to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Maddala Subba Rao v. Estate Abolition Tribunal, 1964 2 An.W.R. 276.

(3.) There, as in the present case, an enquiry was started suo motu under section 15 (1), but pattas were granted Under section 11(a) of the Act. The Division Bench held that the entire enquiry held by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the order passed therein by him as also the order of the Tribunal were vitiated and were illegal. It was observed that the proceedings under section 11 (a) of the Act differs from the enquiry under section 15 (1) of the Act. In an enquiry under section 15 (1) of the Act, only the landholder's claims under sections 12, 13 or 14 came up for scrutiny. That section stands contrasted with section 11(a) of the Act which deals with the claims of the ryots for ryotwari pattas. The two enquiries cannot be mixed up. And if an enquiry is so mixed up, it was observed that