KANUMURI CHINA SITARAMARAJU Vs. P V RAMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Eluru, directing the advance compensation deposited by the Government in regard to the acquisition of Guddigudem Estate amounting to Rs. 6,371 to be paid entirely to the 1st respondent, notwithstanding the fact that the claim of the appellant under section 42 of the Estates Abolition Act was admitted.

(2.) The 1st respondent was appointed Receiver in O.S. No. 770 of 1948 on the file of the High Court of Madras. That was a suit instituted by Rani Mangathayaramma Garu against her sister Rani Papayammarao Gam for partiton of the estates. Pending that suit, as already stated, the ist respondent was appointed receiver. The estates were notified by the Government under the Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (XXVI of 1948) and the Receiver duly delivered possession of the Guddigudem estate to the Government on 21st September, 1953 and the Repudi estate on 3rd February, 1954. We are not here concerned with the vicissitudes of this litigation. Suffice it to say that at the time of the discharge of the Receiver, the Madras High Court held that he could recover Rs. 9,524-8-0 out of the advance compensation deposited or to be deposited with the Estates Abolition Tribunal in respect of the Guddigudem estate as well as any interim payments so far made or might hereafter be made in respect of that estate. After this order was made, the 1st respondent applied under section 42 of the Estates Abolition Act to the Tribunal at Chittoor for payment of this money out of the advance compensation already referred to. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that since it was a liability incurred after the notified date, it was not admissible under section 42 of the Estates Abolition Act.

(3.) This order was revised by our learned brother, Bhimasankaram, J., under Article 227 of the Constitution in the view that it was an order of Court that entitled the 1st respondent to receive this amount and not any of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. The appeal that was sought to be preferred against this order under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was not successful, as a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party held that a Letters Patent Appeal was not competent against an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in his revisional jurisdiction. After this, the 1st respondent applied for payment out of the advance compensation and, in spite of the contention of the appellant that he was entitled to share proportionately the amount in deposit in Court, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Eluru, ordered that a cheque should issue in favour of the 1st respondent for the total sum of Rs. 6,371. The Tribunal thought that it was giving effect to the order of the High Court, although left to itself it would have directed that the appellant would be entitled to a rateable dividend. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.