KARUTHA KRITYA RAMESWARASWAMI VARU Vs. R RAMALINGA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a Writ of Certi-orari for removing to this Court the records in I. A. No. 117 of 1952 in A. S. No. 456 of 1950 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vijayanagaram and quashing the same.2. The petitioner is the Executive Officer of the temple of Sri Krutha Kritya Rameswaraswami Vanu situate in Gudimoola Rameswaram, a village in Rajole Taluk in East Godavari District. The temple owns an inam known as Gudimoola Khandrika. After the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) was passed, the Seltlement Officer, Vijayawada initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 9 of the Act to determine whether the Khandrika aforesaid is an inam estate as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Act.It was contended on behalf of the Devasthanam that the grant was neither of a whole village, nor of a named village, that it consisted only of part of the village of Rameswaram and that therefore it was not an estate under Section 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908). The 1st respondent congested the position taken up by the Devasthanam and contended that Gudimoola Khandrika when it was granted was by itself a village, and that in any case the matter was concluded by a decision of the Privy Council and two decisions of the High Court of Madras; that further the grant to the temple consisted only of melwaram and that the grant therefore constituted an inam estate within the meaning of the Abolition Act.The Settlement Officer recorded a finding basing himself on the decision of the Privy Council that Gudimool Khandrika was a whole village inam and that it was also an inam estate. The Devasthanam filed an appeal before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vijayanagaram against the finding of the Settlement Officer, and it was numbered as A. S. 456 of 1950 on its file. The Tribunal considered the whole material placed before it by the learned counsel on both sides and finally rendered a decision on 13-5-52 upholding the contention of the appellant before them that the Khandrika in question was not an inam estate. The 1st respondent, however, presented to the Tribunal a few days later a petition, purporting to he one made under Order 47 Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under the rules framed under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948, for review of its judgment.By its order dated 16/10/1952, the Tribunal set aside its earlier judgment and passed an order dismissing A. S. No. 456 of 1950. It is necessary to mention, in order to appreciate one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that at the Lime when the first judgment1 was delivered, the Tribunal consisted of Sri T. Srirangam Nayudu, Sri W. V. V. Sundara Rao and Sri R. Ramakrishnayya, while at the time the second judgment was delivered, Sri W. V. V. Sundara Rao was no longer a member of the Tribunal and his place was occupied by Janab M.D. Mohiuddin.3. On these facts Mr. Raja Aiyar learned counsel for the Devasthanam has raised the following contentions: In the fast place, he submits that the tribunal has no power of review. Secondly, he argues that even assuming that the Tribunal could review its own judgment, having regard to the change of personnel, the review could not be entertained under Order 47 Rule 2 C.P.C. Thirdly he contends that in any case there were no sufficient grounds for review. Lastly he urges that the decision on review is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and is thus amenable to a writ of certiorari.4. Each of these contentions has been met by the learned Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh who appears for the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent being the Estates Abolition Tribunal, and I shall deal with each of the contentions and the arguments contra in the order in which they have been presented to me.5. In addition to what he said by way of reply to the propositions submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate-General raised the contention that the original order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal is itself vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and in case I should quash the judgment on review on the ground of defect of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity, this Court might be called upon to quash the original judgment as so vitiated by a Writ of certiorari and that this consideration also should weigh with me in deciding upon the facts of the present petition.6. I shall take up the contention that under the Act and the rules Framed thereunder, the Tribunal cannot invoke the provisions of Order 47 C.P.C. In order to appreciate this contention, the following provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder should be borne in mind.7. Section 8(4) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 provides that every Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Section 67 of the Act while conferring upon the Government generally by its first sub-section the "power to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act" confers on it by Sub-section (2) the following special powers;