- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding started suo motu by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, under Section 15 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Section 15 (1) reads : "Determination of lands in which the land-holder is entitled to Ryotwari Patta under foregoing provisions :- (1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the land-holder claims a ryotwari patta under Secs. 12, 13 or 14, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed." The first respondent who purchased the land in question on May 12, 1950 claimed a ryotwari patta in respect of the same under Section 13 (b) (iii) which is in these terms : "13. Lands in inam estate in which land-holder is entitled to ryotwari patta :- In the case of an inam estate, the land-holder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of - (a) x x x (b) (i) x x (ii)x x (iii) all lands (not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, Clause (16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, or (iii) forest lands) which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the land-holder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date. Explanation :- 'cultivate' in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth." It is clear that the land-holder in order to be entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 13 (b) (iii) must prove that he has cultivated the land himself or by his own servants or hired labour from July 1, 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of the land from that date. It appears that before the suo motu enquiry under Section 15 (1) had commenced, a ryotwari patta in respect of the same land had been granted jointly in the names of the first respondent and the two appellants before us. This patta was however cancelled as it had been issued without enquiry and the present enquiry under Section 15 (1) was started. The appellants preferred objections to the claim put forward by the first respondent stating that they were in possession of the land and had been cultivating it for the last 30 years. To refute the appellants' claim of possession, the first respondent filed a certified copy of the judgment in Original Suit No. 245 of 1959 of the District Munsif's Court, Madanapalle, which was instituted by the first respondent for declaration of his title to the land in dispute and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants, from interfering with his peaceful possession. This suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the first respondent's possession of the land. The first respondent also filed the certified copy of the decree (Ex. P-3) passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, affirming in appeal the decision of the District Munsif. The Assistant Settlement Officer disregarded Exhibits P-2 and P-3 on the view that the appellants were not parties to the suit. This was plainly wrong as it appears from those exhibits that the appellants were the defendants in the suit. however, the Assistant Settlement Officer also found that the first respondent had failed to prove personal and continuous cultivation from July 1, 1945, his own case being that he had reclaimed the land after his purchase on may 12, 1950. The Assistant Settlement Officer therefore rejected the first respondent's claim and held that the land would be treated as "assessed waste."
(2.) From the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer the first respondent took an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor. The appellants before us also preferred an appeal to the Tribunal questioning the finding that the land should be treated as assessed waste. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the first respondent, affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the first respondent had failed ed to prove that he had been cultivating the land since 1-7-1945, and allowed the other appeal reversing the decision that the land is to be treated as assessed waste, on the view that the fact that a roytwari patta had once been issued in respect of the land indicated that the land was cultivable.
(3.) The first respondent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal on the two appeals. Civil Revision Petition No. 15 of 1966 directed against the order rejecting the first respondent's claim for a ryotwari patta and Civil Revision No. 807 of 1966 against the order allowing the appeal of the appellants were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment on 21-8-1967. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the fact that a ryotwari patta had previously been issued in respect of the land and the further fact that admittedly since 1950 the land was being cultivated, the only dispute being which of the parties did it, was clear indication that the land was cultivable and as such it could not be treated as assessed waste. However, the High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Pariannan v. Amman Kovil, AIR 1952 Mad 323 (FB) held that the test employed by the Tribunal that the land holder should prove that he had been personally cultivating the land was not the proper test and that it was sufficient if he was able to show that there was an intention to cultivate or resume the land for cultivation. On these findings the High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made in its judgment.;