R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 27, 1969. By this judgment a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and quashed the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh decision according to law on the basis of the materials already on record in the following circumstances.
(2.) A suo motu inquiry under S. 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition And Conversion into Ryotwari) Act was initiated by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1958 for determining whether Lingamguntla Agraharam is an Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. The Assistant Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal held that Lingamguntla Agraharam was not an Inam estate. Later the definition of an Inam Estate was amended in 1957 and after the amendment, an Inam. Estate, as defined by S. 2(7) includes all Estates within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer therefore again held a suo motu inquiry to determine whether the Lingamguntla Agraharam came within the wider definition of the Inam Estate introduced in 1957 Amendment.
(3.) Some of the Ryots of the village alleged that the Lingamguntla Agraharam was an Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Act and engaged a counsel who participated in the inquiry on their behalf up to a certain stage but later on failed to appear, with the result that the Assistant Settlement Officer proceeded with the inquiry in the absence of Ryots or their counsel.;