JUTTIGA SOMANNA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOVVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 3 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams, (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1956 provides that the Tahsildar may suo motv enquire and determine whether a particular land is an inam land, whether such inam land is in ryotwari or zamindari village and whether such inam land is held by an institution. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that before holding an enquiry the Tahsildar shall cause to be published in the village where the inam lands are situate a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in such inam land to file before him a statement. of particulars, etc. Rule 3 of the' Rules framed under the Act prescribes the manner in which such notices has to be published in the village. Sub-rule 3 of rule 3 requires the notice to be affixed in the Village Ghavadi and that it should be further publithed by beat of tom-tom. Sub-rule (5) of rule 3 prescribes that a copy of the notice shall also be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the lands specified in the notice. A Tahsildar proposing to make an enquiry under section 3 of the Act must make some effort to discover the persons interested in the lands in respect of which he proposes to hold the enquiry. He cannot rest content with the public notice given under sub-rule (3) of rule 3. Otherwise the imperative words used in Sub-rule (5) of rule 5 will be meaningless. It is not ordinarily difficult to discover the persons known or believed to be interested in the lands. The village records, the revenue rrcords and information furnished by Village Officers are readily available to the Tahsildar and having regard to the character of the legislation, which undoubtedly has far reaching effects, it cannot be said to be too much to expect of the Tahsildar to serve individual- notices on persons interested as contemplated by sub-rule (5) of rule 3.Sub-section (3) of section 3 provides for a reasonable opportunity being given to all persons concerned for adducing evidence and requires the Tahsildar to give his decision in writing. Sub-section (4) gives a right of appeal to person or institutions aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar. Sub-section (5) makes the decision of the appellate authority and in case where no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar final. Sub-section (7) of sections makes the decision of the Tahsildar binding on all persons claiming an interest in the land whether they have appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or not.

(2.) After the determination of the questions mentioned in section 3 the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on the application of a person or an institution grant a ryotwari patta to the persons entitled to the same. This is provided under section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (i) of section 7 again prescribes that notice in the prescribed manner shall be served on all persons or institutions interested in the grant of a ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned. Obviously the scope of the enquiry under section 7 is limited to the determination of the question as to who is entitled to the ryotwari patta. The questions whether the lands are inam lands, whether they are situate in a ryotwari, zamindari or inam village and whether they are held by an institution are not questions which can be railed or agitated in the enquiry under section 7, the decision on such questions having already been given and become final in the enquiry under section 3. The limited nature of the enquiry under section 7, in my opinion, further emphasises the necessity of individual notices in enquiries under section 3, to persons known to be interested in the lands. The mandatory character Of the requirements of individual notice under rule 5 cannot be lightly ignored.

(3.) In the village of Dharmavaram in West Godawari District there is an extent of Ac. 14-22 cents, of land (Ac. 10-60 cents plus Ac. 3-62 cents) in R.S. Nos. 12 and 14 in respect of which the Tahsildar of Kowur passed an order under Action 3 (2) of the Inams Abolition Act declaring that the lands belonged to Sri Malleswaraswami temple, Dharmavaram. This order was passed on a suo molu enquiry after giving public notice as contemplated by sub-rule (3) of rule 3 but without giving any individual notices to any persons as contemplated by sub-rule (5). After the decision of the Tahsildar the Tahsildar once more acting suo motu started proceedings under section 7 of the Act and this time he gave individual notices to the present petitioners who appeared before him and opposed the grant of a ryotwari patta to the institution stating that the lands did not belong to the institution but that the lands had been granted to their fore-fathers for rendering washerman service in the village and for rendering service to the deity, Sri Malleswaraswamivaru.