STATE OF ANDHRA Vs. DAKARAPU RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the District Judge, West Godavari, dismissing in limine a petition under the Madras Estates Communal, Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XIV of 1947) to set aside some alienation's made by the landholder in the communal forest land situated in what is known as Koppara or South Vellore Estate. The petition was originally filed by some of the tenants in the estate. To this application was impleaded the State Government also. The landholder granted long leases to respondents 3 to 6 and also gifted away some forest lands to his wife, respondents No. 8. Alleging that they had customary and prescriptive rights for grazing their cattle and using the shrubs for fencing and household purposes and that in order to defeat the provided pattas after the passing of the Act, they moved the District Court under section 4 of Act XIV of 1947 the landholder brought into existence spurious ans antedated pattas after the passing of the Act, they moved the District Court under section 4 of Act XIV of 1947 for a declaration that these pattas were void and in operative and did not confer any right on respondents. The District Judge while holding that the petitioners therein did not succeed in establishing the rights set up by them found by and order, dated 18th July, 1950, that the pattas obtained by the present respondents 3 to 6 from 7th responder were void and inoperative. The dissatisfied alienees filed C.M. Ps. Nos. 8987 of 1950 and 9534 of 1950 for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for record in O.P. No. 95 of 1948 on the file of the District Court to quash the orders passed therein contending inter alia that having found that the respondents had not established their customary rights in the land the District Judge should have dismissed their petition on the ground that they were not interested in the transactions within the meaning of section 4 (3) of Act XIV of 1947. These petitions were dismissed by Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) observing that in the trial Court though an issue was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition they did not press it and if they had pressed it, the Government could have transposed themselves as petitioners or filed a fresh application for the same relief and having adopted that attitude in the Court below it was not open to them to seek the aid of the Court to get that order quashed on that ground. The matter was carried in Letters Patent Appeal to the same Court which reversed the order under appeal in the opinion that having found that the respondents had not established their customary rights in the land the proper thing for the learned District Judge should have been to dismiss the O.P. since they had no locus standi to sustain it, after giving an opportunity to the Government to transpose themselves as petitioners if they were so advised or to file a fresh application for the same relief. In this view of the matter, the learned Judges set aside the order of Subba Rao, J., and remanded the petition to the trial Court to dispose of it according to law. When it went back, the Government got themselves transposed as petitioners. When the matter came on for final hearing, a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that since Act XIV of 1947 was repealed, the petition had become infructuous. This defence was accepted by the trial Court resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

(2.) The chief point for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the proceedings started under Act XIV of 1947 have abated by reason of repeal of that enactment. This in its turn depends upon the interpretation of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1867, which are reproduced in section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act. It is convenient to extract the terms of section 6 of the General Clauses Act here:-

(3.) In support of his decision that this provision of law was inapplicable to cases of this type, the District Judge relied on Danmal v. Baburam, AIR 1936 Allahabad 3 , and two other rulings to a like effect. In Danmal v. Baburam, AIR 1936 Allahabad 3 , the question was whether a suit by an unregistered firm against a third party would be barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act after it came into force notwithstanding the saving clause embodied in section 74 (b) of the Act. Chief Justice Suleman entertained some doubts on the point and was inclined to hold that the saving clause would come into play to exempt the suit although the right sought to be enforced by it had accrued prior to the commencement of the Act but ultimately agreed with the other learned Judge who took the view that the suit was affected by section 69 of the Partnership Act. In the course of the judgment, this is what the learned Judge said:-