ODURU CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA AND ANR. v. DUVVURU SUBRAMANYA REDDY (2)

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1006

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA, A.D. KOSHAL

Case summary

(a) the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXX of 1947) in so far as it relates to matters other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 (Madras Regulation XXV of- 1802)...

Judgment text

ODURU CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA AND ANR. v. )·-- DUVVURU SUBRAMANYA REDDY Octo~er 23, 1979 . a [N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. D. KOSHAL,JJ. ] .. Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948- Scope of section 56 of the Act-Determina~ion of dispute betweetc the rival ,_claimants 10 ryotwari patta-Civil Court jurisdiction is barred. By virtue of the provisions of Section 53 of the Andina State Ac~ 1953, the district 0f Chittoor was made part of Andhra State but continued to be governed by all the laws which were in force in the State of Madras immediately before the ! st of October 1953. One P. ~. Reddy, Challamma, sister's daughter of the rospondent-plaintiff and her son Srinivasalu Reddy were the owners of the land in dispute v. ·hich are situated in Chittoor district. Some of the lands were '1) sold by Challamma and Srinivasalu Reddy and the rest by P. K. Reddy and .

Srinivasalu Reddy by means of two sale deeds dated the 25th September 1947 (Exhibits A-8 and A-9 respectively) in favour of Pocha Subba Reddy who was Chal! amma's brother and maternal. uncle of Srinivasalu Reddy. Although both the sale deeds were supported by valid consideiation, p05Session was not delivered to the vendee under either of them and continued to be with Challamrna. Consequent upon the promulgation of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, a dispute arose between Challamma and Pocha Subba Reddy as to who of them was entitled to the patta under the Act in respe :; in appeal by the legal representatives of Challamma and Srinivasalu Reddy (who had died during the pendency of the suit) reversed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit, holding that the rights of the plaintiff und -section (1). It goes without saying that if no appeal is filed, a similar finality shall attach to the decision of the ·Seulemertt Officer.

One o,f such matters is covered by clause (c) of sub- . section (1) and embraces the determination of the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is. Questions which a Settlement Officer may be called upon to decide under the said clause (c) woold certainly include -such as may have resulted from a dispute between two or more persons as to who of thi:m is the lawful ryot; and once a dispute of that type has been adjudicated upon by the Settlement Officer, his decision becomes final unless an appeal is filed before the Tribunal, in which event it is the decision of the Tribunal to wbich ~ality attachtti. · In either case the decision is not liable to :be questioned in any Court of law. [1013 B-E] Muddada Chayanna v. Karnam Narayana. & Anr. [1979] 3 S. C. R. 201, fol- ,Jowed. 3. Section 56 was a part of the 1948 Madras Act on the Isl of October 1953, .

and by virtue of Section 53 of the Andhra State Act, it continues to be so in so far as its application to the district of Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the repeal of that section by the Madras Legislature being wholly in- . dfective in relation to the territories forming part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. [1015 A-Bl Krislinaveni Thevar v. Perumal Konar, [1961] 1 MU 168, A. R. Sanjeevi Naicker v. P. M. Shanmugham Udayar, [1965] 2 MLJ 204, Pinninty Peda Go- . vindayya v. Pimu'nty Subbarao [1969] II And. Weekly Report (NORC) p. l; • distinguisheC.. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2136 of 1969: ''v Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order • dated . 24-1-1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. A. No. 552/66. P. Govindan Nair, V. V. Rao and G. N. Rao for the Appellants. · • A. V. Nair for the Respondent. 1008 MREME COURT . llEPORTS [1980] 1 S. C. R. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J.

-The facts giving ri&e to this appeal by special leave are concluded by ccncurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court . >--and the first appellate court and may be briefly stated here with reference to the following pedigree-table : Krishna Reddy I I I . Subramanyam Reddy Daughther (name not Veiikatarama (plaintiff) known) - Reddy ,1 . , I I ·- Pocha Sobba Reddy Krishna Chal! amma (defendant No. 6) Reddy = (defendant No. n SrinivasuL Reddy (defendant No. 2) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one P. K. Reddy were the owners of the lands in dispute which . are situated in village Makhamambavilasam forming part of Chittoor district. Som~ of the lands were sold by defendants Nos. I and 2 and the rest by P. K. Reddy and defendant No. 2 by means of two sale deeds dated the. 25th of September, 1947 (exhibits A-8 and A-9 respectively) in favour of defendant No. 6 who was the brother of defendant No. 1 and therefore the maternal uncle of defendant No. 2.

Although both the sale deeds were supported by valid consideration, possession was not delivered to the vendee under either of them and continued to be with defendant No. 1.. In 1948 was promulgated the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter called the 'Madras Act') section 3 of which reads thus : "3. With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise express! y provided in this Act- (a) the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXX of 1947) in so far as it relates to matters other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 (Madras Regulation XXV of- 1802) , the y Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 ·(Madras Act I of 1908), , CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA v. D. SUllRAMANYA (Koshal, !.

) 1'009 and all other enactments ~applicable ,to the estate as such shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate; (b) the e'ntire estate (including all communal lands; porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture \. · '' lands, Ianka lands, forests; mines and minerals; quarries; R · rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; fisheries and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate; (c) aillrights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder, shall as against the Government cease and determine; (d) the Government may, after removing any obstruc- .

tion that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to the estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof; Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they 'E consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta- (i) if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to snch patta; (ii) if. such person is a landholder, pending the decision ' of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta; (e) the principal or any other landholder and any other • person, whose rights stand transferred under clanse (b) pr cease and determine nnder clause (c), shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or con- ..

ferred on him by or under this Act; ,, (f) the relationship of landholder and ryot, shall, as between them, be extingulshed; . (g) any rights and privileges which may have accrued · in the estate, to any person before the notified-date against 1&-743SCil79 ' . I the principal or any other landholder thereof, shall cease and determine, and shall not be enforceable against the ~ Government or such landholder, and every such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on him by or under this Act. " • The term 'estate' is defined in elause (3) of section 2 of th. e Madras Act as meaning a zamindari or an under-tenure or an i111un • . :state. ).. ,_ Section 11 declares that every ryot in an estate would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all ryoti and lanka lands in his occupation before the "notified" date which meant, under clause (10) of section 2, the date appointed by a notification issued by tbe Govern- ·ment.

Sections 12 to 15 deal with the determination of lands in zamindari, inam and under-tcnur\' estates in which the 'landholder is declared to be entitled to a ryotwari patta. ,.... / On the 1st of October, 1953, came into being the State of Andhra \, through an Act of Parliament known as the Andhra State Act, by i virtue of section 3 contained in Part II of which the entire Chittoor r District forming part of the State of Madras prior to the said date was transferred, along with other areas, to the State of Andhra. Section 53. of the Act last mentioned provided as follows : I "53. The provisions of Part II sliall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law ~ in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to tli:e 1-. : 'Slate of Madras or of Mysore shall, until otherwise provided I' lby a competent Legislature or other competent authority, ,continue to have> the· same meaning.

" As a result of this provision the district of Chittoor continued fo 'be governed by all the laws, ineluding the Act, which were in force iil the State of Madras immediately before the 1st of October, 1953. A dispute arose between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 6 as to wha of them was entitled to a patta under the Act in respect of the lands covered by exhibits A-8 and A-9. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer resolved the dispute by means of an order dated the 14th of September, 1957 (exhibits B-3 and B-4) holding that defendant No. 1 was entitled to the patta on the ground that she had throughout been in possession of the lands in question to the exclusion of defendant No. 6. CHENCHULAKSlIMA1'D'1A v. ions of section 56 because that section was a part of the Madras Act on the 1st of October, 1953. and continues to be so.

in so far as its application to the district of Chittoor in Andhrn Praaesh is concerned, the repeal of that section by the Madras Legislature being wholly ineffective in so far as territories forming part of the State of Andhra are concerned. TI1e only other case to which reference was made by learned ceunsel for the plaintiff was Pinninty Peda Govindayya v. Pinninty . Subbarno('). That wus a case in which sections 3, 4, 7, 12 and 14 . ef the Andhra Inams '(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 'and rule 15 of the rules framed thereunder came in for inter- _,pretation. The relevancy of the case is not apparent inasmuch as it 111. akes no reference to a provision similar to the one enacted by section 56 of the Madras Act as forming part of the statute or rules then under consideration. We do not see, therefore, that the plaintiffs case is in any manner advanced by the decision cited. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accepted.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed on the ground that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain it by reason of the provisions of section 56 oE the Madras Act and that the order of the Additional Settlement Officer dated the l4th of September, 1957 (exhibits B-3 and B-4) is final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law in so far as the. -determination cf the dispute between the rival claimants to the ryotwari patta is concfa'ned. The plaintll'f-rospondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court shall, however, be paid to him by the appellants i11 accordance with the p order dated 30-9-1969 passed by this Court while granting special leave. S. R. Appeal allowed. (I~ 1969 II Andhra Weekly Reporter-·Notes of Recent Cases l. ,