G C H JAGADEV Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEKKALI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, confirming the decision of the Tahsildar under
section 4 (1) of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956.
(2.) The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner is the son of the late Raja of
Tekkali. The contesting respondents 2 and 3 were his dasis. He settled certain
properties upon them. The land in this writ proceeding was included in that
settlement and formed part of his ancestral properties. Subsequently, a creditor of the
Raja obtained a decree against him and in execution attached the properties. The
dasis put forward a claim and eventually the matter came up for adjudication before
a Division Bench of this Court. It was held by the Division Bench that the present
petitioner and his brother who were sons of the late Raja, had become divided from
the Raja even before the settlement in favour of the dasis was executed by the Raja.
Therefore, the High Court held that the settlement deed to the dasis conveyed to
them title only in respect of one-third of the property covered by that deed. At the
same time, it was found by this Court that the entire property including the one-
third in respect of which the dasis were found to have title was in the actual
possession and enjoyment of the dasis. This decision was rendered on 3rd November,
1958 and the judgment was exhibited as Exhibit D-23 in the proceedings before
the Tribunal below.
(3.) The property in question is an inam land in a zamindary village. Therefore,
the petitioner, who is the son of theRaja and who alleged to have come by his brother's
one-third share also, claimed title to two-third of the inam land in question. He
claimed that he was holding two-third of the inam land within the meaning of
section 4(1). He also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Exhibit D-23), which
was produced by respondents 2 and 3, the dasis, already adverted to. The petitioner
has an younger brother, who also is the son of the late Raja, and, therefore, entitled
to an equal share with the petitioner. But the case of the petitioner has been that
he became exclusively entitled to his brother's share in the land in dispute on account
of some arrangement between him and his brother. The application which the
petitioner preferred before the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Inams Abolition
Act, 1956, for the grant of the patta to him in respect of the land in dispute was
resisted by the dasis on the ground that they were entitled to the patta and not the
petitioner. The Tahsildar held in favour of the dasis. On appeal to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, the decision of the Tahsildar was confirmed. The petitioner
having no other remedy by way of resort to the civil Court has come up to this Court
asking for a writ to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The main contention urged by the petitioner's learned counsel is that, the
"Revenue Divisional Officer has disregarded the legal effect and the implications of
the words of section 4(1) of the Act, which runs :
"4. (1) In the case of an inam land in a ryotwari or zamindari village, the person or
institution holding such land as inamdar on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.