RAMA NAIDU Vs. RAMADAS NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case demonstrates in a very telling manner how a decision changes the course of law as it had obtained, which affects the course of litigation and the rights and liabilities of the parties. The difficulty in this case which we shall presently refer to, arises on account of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Muttayya v. Gopala Krishnayya, (1973) 2 APLJ 209: (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85).

(2.) The matter arose in the following manner. An extent of about 15 acres of land is in R. S. No. 160 in Edavanivaripalli, hamlet of Nelakuntla Village. It formed part of the erstwhile Zamindari of Bangarupalayam. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for ryotwari patta in respect of this land of 15 acres. He purported to file it under Section 56(1) of the Estates Abolition Act. In the petition he alleged that the land was his ancestral property for which the erstwhile Zamindar granted a patta in favour of his father in the year 1942. But at the time of survey and settlement, the Village Officer fabricated the Village Accounts and made fraudulent entries in the Village Accounts and obtained pattas in favour of the respondents. It may be noted that the original respondents in the petition were the vendors of the present respondents. The claim for Ryotwari Patta was dealt with by the Asst. Settlement Officer who rejected the claim of the petitioner by his order dated 10-2-1965. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor in A. S. 2/66. By order dated 27-8-1966, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal. The case was enquired into afresh and another Asst. Settlement Officer in his proceeding D/- 21-1-1967 granted Patta in favour of the petitioner. This time the vendors of the present respondents took it on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and after further enquiries, the Tribunal remanded the matter for further enquiry by order dated 21-9-1967. The Tribunal gave a specific direction while remanding the matter, that proper correlation between the Faimash number and Survey number should be made and also the actual extent of the old Patta should be fixed. The Tribunal also directed that the present respondents who purchased the land from the then respondents, should be impleaded as parties. Thereupon the matter went back to the Settlement Officer, Nellore. A regular enquiry was held before him. All the persons were impleaded as parties and they figured as respondents 1 to 7. Witnesses were recalled and examined, and the respondents themselves adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thus, a full-fledged enquiry went on before the Settlement Officer. After full enquiry and consideration of the matter that Officer by his order dated 14-6-1970 directed that a Ryotwari Patta be granted in favour of the petitioner for R. S. 160/2, which was correlated to Faimash No. 212/1 and 2, measuring 15 acres. The Settlement Officer also purported to give his direction under Section 56(1) of the Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He also mentioned that an appeal against that order lay before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor, within 60 days from the date of that order. It is manifest from what we have said that the claim for Ryotwari Patta was in substance one under Section 11 of the Act. Since there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as to the question in whose holding the land should be included, they were also impleaded and an enquiry was held as to in whose holding the land in question was. Evidently, there was no dispute whether the land was ryoti or not. The question centered round the correlation of the old Faimash Number with the present R. S. Number, the actual extent of the land and in whose holding the land ought to be included. Because there was a patent provision under Section 56(1) providing for a decision as to the lawful ryot in respect of a holding, the petitioner purported to file his petition under Section 56(1) and the Settlement Officer also allowed the petition and gave a direction to grant patta to the petitioner, under that provision. That is why the Settlement Officer mentioned in his order that an appeal lay to the appellate Tribunal within 60 days.

(3.) Accordingly the respondents in the present writ petition filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, it was reported that it became infructuous and so, the Tribunal dismissed it. At that stage a decision was rendered on 11-10-1972 by a Full Bench of this Court holding that Section 56(1)(c) has no relation whatsoever with the determination of any question under Section 11 and that the two provisions are independent and mutually exclusive; that they do not supplement each other, their scope and operation and their effect are entirely different and that Section 56(1)(c) can, therefore, have no relation to Section 11 but is closely related to the other clauses of Section 56(1) read with Section 55. While doing so, the Full Bench dissented from the view which was in vogue till then as laid down in Chigurupati Venkata Subbaiah v. Ravi Punnayya, (1957) 2 Andh WR 204. Thereupon, the respondents filed before the Appellate Tribunal a petition to review the earlier order of dismissal. They also filed an application for condonation of the delay in seeking review. The Tribunal granted both the applications by condoning the delay and also by reviewing the earlier decision by dismissing the appeal. It held that in view of the Full Bench decision which is reported in (1973) 2 APLJ 209 : (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85), the Settlement Officer was not competent to order under Section 56(1) of the Act that Ryotwari Patta be issued to the first respondent and that the Settlements Officers order was without jurisdiction. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer directing Patta to be granted to the petitioner was set aside. It is this order of the Appellate Tribunal which is challenged in this writ petition.