T MUNUSWAMI NAIDU DIED Vs. R VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the operation of S. 56 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) limited only to the purposes of Ss. 55 and 56 (1) (a) and (b) of that Act? Cannot the Settlement Officer decide the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is when such a dispute arises whole considering the application or applications filed under S. 11 of the Abolition Act for granting ryotwari pattas and also when a similar question arises under the other provisions of the Abolition Act? A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85 : 1973(2) APLJ 209) (FB). A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Divan, C. J. and Ameraswari J. doubted the correctness of this view and felt that it required reconsideration. That is why as many as five of us are obliged to examine the question.

(2.) The dispute relates to a land of Ac. 12-32 cents. It is in a former Zamindari estate. The present writ petitioner filed O. S. No. 247/48 in the District Munsifs Court Mandanapalli for declaration of his title to and possession of this land against the respondent. That suit was decreed on 20th of July, 1950. In A. S. 42/51, which was the respondents appeal, the Sub Court, Chittoor, by its order dated 31-12-1951 reversed the trial Courts judgement. The petitioner carried the matter to the High Court of Madras in S. A. No. 539/52 which was transferring to the High Court of Andhra. Satyanarayana Rao, J., dismissed the second appeal on 13th of July, 1955 pointing out that the Zamindari estate had been notified under the Abolition Act and consequently the Settlement Officer should decide the questions which were raised in the suit. Even by that time the respondent had filed an application under S. 11 of the Abolition Act before the Settlement Officer. That Officer held that the dispute raised by the respondent under S. 11 should really be decided under S. 56 (1) (c) and cold not be decided under an application for patta under S. 11. In revision the Director of Settlements confirmed this view.

(3.) Thereupon, the present petitioner made an application under S. 56 (1) (c) praying that it might be decided as to who the lawful ryot is in respect of that holding. The Assistant Settlement Officer disposed of the petition on 20th of July, 1964 and held that the petitioner was the lawful ryot. The respondent carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal at Chittoor in T. A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2965. It was pending for nine years and when it was finally taken up for consideration, the above Full Bench decision in Muthayyas case (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85) (FB) (suora) had come. Following that decision the Appellate Tribunal, by its decision dated 29/06/1974, held that the petitioners application under S. 56 (1) (c) was not maintainable and the dispute as to who the lawful ryot in respect of the holding is could not be divided when it related to a claim for patta under S. 11. Saying this the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent. The present writ petition has been field challenging the correctness of the Tribunals decision. The Tribunal was bound to follow the Full Bench decision and so it did. The question now is whether the very limited scope given to Cl. (c) of S. 56 (1) of the Abolition Act by the said Full Bench is correct.