MEDURI VENKATA SANYASI RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 17th June, 1968 of our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., whereby he rejected the plea of the petitioners (appellants) that the decision of the Tribunal was based on no evidence and with regard to the finding that the land is assessed waste, he held that it was not competent for the Assistant Settlement Officer to determine the character of the land as assessed waste in a suo motu enquiry under section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act. Thus he accepted the contention of the appellants partly allowed the writ petition to that extent by quashing the declaration that the Ian in question is an assessed waste land. The petitioners have now come up in appeal.

(2.) Their first contention is that there was ample evidence before the Tribunal to hold in favour of the petitioners that they are entitled to a patta under section 13 (a) or 13 (b) of the Estates Abolition Act and that the Tribunal entirely disregarded this evidence. The same contention was urged before our learned brother. On a careful consideration, our learned brother came to the conclusion that the decision of the Tribunal could not be assailed as the petitioners, who had approached the Assistant Settlement Officer for a patta, under section 13 (a) or section 13 (b), had failed to prove that they were entitled to the same under one provision or the other. They adduced some evidence, no doubt, but that unless the appellants had satisfied the Tribunal that they were entitled to a patta under section 13 (a) or section 13 (b) it was not possible for them to get a favourable order. Evidently they did not adduce that evidence which was sufficient to establish their claim. It cannot be urged that the Tribunal did not consider any material piece of evidence that the petitioners had adduced before it or erred in law in disregarding any piece of evidence. Our learned brother, on a careful consideration, came to the conclusion that the evidence that was adduced was fully considered and it was rejected by both the Tribunals. In these circumstances, there is no occasion for the appellants to argue that the order was based on no evidence at all.

(3.) The next contention raised was that Exhibit P-i, the judgment in A.S.No. 249 of 1951 had satisfied the requirements of section 13 (a) or section 13 (b) inasmuch as there is a reference therein to the fact that the appellants were leasing out temporarily the lands to some tenants. The learned Judge rejected this contention on the ground that the fact that the lands were being leased out temporarily to several tenants did not seem to have been raised either before the Assistant Settlement Officer or before the Tribunal. Of course, Exhibit P-1 was produced before the Tribunal and it was considered also by it. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the entire evidence, reached the conclusion that the appellants had failed to establish that they came either under section 13 (a) or section 13 (b) to be entitled to a patta.