K PARDBASRATHI Vs. ESTATES ABOLITION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, West Godavari dtd. 29/7/1963 in A.S. No. 238 of 1960 confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Eluru dtd. 29/2/1960.

(2.) The essential facts in order to understand the contentions raised before us are that the petitioners are the landholders of the Dhumanthigudem Zamindari estate situate in Kovvur Taluk, West Godavari District. The said estate belonged previously to Suramoudi family. The entire village which included the private lands, was mortgaged by S. Apparao, the head of the family to the father of the petitioners under a mortgage deed dtd. 2/9/1911. The village including the private lands were auctioned in a court sale in the execution of the decree on the foot of that mortgage. The father of the petitioners purchased the village including the private lands and took delivery of the same oft 9/2/1926. Since then it is alleged that the lands were being cultivated by the after of the petitioners, and after him by the petitioners. The lands in question were being enjoyed as private lands all along these lands were never claimed by any one to be ryoti lands. The estate of Dhumantigudem was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rvotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) and was taken over on 7/9/1950. The petition lands, which are private lands, however continued in the possession of the petitioners. It is alleged that the Government took further steps on the basis that the lands in question are private lands. The compensation for the estate was computed without reference to the income derived from these lands. The Government assessed these lands and collected the assessment every year from the petitioners.

(3.) On 26/1/1951, the petitioners made an application under Sec. 12 of the Estates Abolition Act for the grant of a patta to them for the petition lands consisting of twenty-two items. The Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dtd. 18/4/1952 rejected the petition. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal; the Tribunal also rejected the appeal in so far as items 16 and 22 were concerned. It, however, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry in respect of the other items and directed the disposal of the matter in accordance with law.