MUPPIRALA JAGANNADHAM Vs. CHAIRMAN ESTATES ABOLITION TRIBUNAL CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor, refusing to set aside that of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, who declined to grant a a patta to the appellant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant, who is an inamdar of Kondur Agraharam situate in Venkatagiri Zamin and who is possessing half a share in it, applied for a ryotwari patta under section 13 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of a ryotwari patta in his favour for eleven items of property comprised in the village, alleging that they were his private lands. But, later on, finding that these lands were found to be ryoti lands by the High Court of Madras in S.A. No. 1606 of 1949, the appellant tried to bring the case under section 13 (b) (iii) of the Act The Tribunal, in agreement with the Settlement Officer, came to the conclusion that the requirements of section 13 (b) (iii) were not satisfied with regard to items 1, 2 and 4 and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to a patta under section 13. It is this order that was brought into question before our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., in W.P. No. 51 of 1954.

(3.) The learned Judge declined to interfere with the order sought to be removed on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that there was an error apparent on the face of the decision of the Tribunal which alone entitled him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the opinion of our learned brother, the appellant has not established the three requisites contained in section 13 (b) (iii). Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has brought this appeal. It is urged by Sri Ramasarma that section 13 of the Act should be read subject to section 64 of that Act and, if so read, his client would be entitled/to a ryotwari patta because it was by reason of the orders of the civil Courts that he was prevented from obtaining possession of the property in execution of the decree which was granted to him in O.S. Nos. 841 of 1944 and 720 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nellore, which was ultimately confirmed by the High Court of Madras in S.A. No. 1606 of 1949.