Decided on September 16,1971

V.VENKATARAO Respondents


Ramachandra Raju, J. - (1.)In this writ appeal the correctness of the order of our learned brother, Mr. Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote rendered in writ petition No. 1733 of 1967 is questioned. The learned Judge, by his order, upheld the decision of the Sub-collector, Vizianagaram, given on 2-1-67 reversing the order of the Tahsildar (Inams), Vizianagaram, dated 13-2-64. The matter has arisen under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)_ Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the "Inams Abolition act" and the question involved is whether the village of Royllavaka in Vizianagaram Taluk. Visakhapatnam District, is an inam village or not as defined under Section 2 (d) of that Act. The Tahsildar found that according to "A" and "B" registers of the village, Rollavaka is an Agraharam village . On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub-Collector), Vizianagaram, disagreed with the conclusion of the Tahsildar found that it is not an inam village.
(2.)The object of the Act is to abolish and convert the inam lands into ryotwari lands in inam villages as also in ryotwari or zamindari villages. As provided under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, 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 commencement of the Act is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof. In the case of an inam land in an institution, such institution will be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. If such land in an inam village is held by an inamdar other than an institution and in the actual occupation of a tenant on the date of the commencement of the Act, he is entitled to a ryotwari patta for two thirds share of that land and the inamdar is entitled to ryotwari patta for the remaining one third share thereof. The present appellants, who are petitioners in the writ petition, are tenants in respect of the writ petition, are tenants in respect of various inam lands in the village of Rollavaka. They claim that the village is an inam village and therefore they are entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of two-thirds of those lands. What is an inam village for the purposes of the names Abolition Act is defined under Section 2 (d) of that act,. It is provided under Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act that as soon as may be, after commencement of the Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application enquire and determine (I) whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land, (ii) whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village, (iii) whether such inam land is held by an institution. On an application filed by the Ist respondent herein, an advocate of Vizianagaram, the Tahsildar, (Inams), Vizianagaram took up enquiry as provided under Sec. 3 of the Inams Abolition Act o determine whether the lands in question are inam lands in a Zeroyati village or in an inam village and gave the decision as mentioned above that the village is an inam village.
(3.)The lands in question are admittedly inam lands and are now part of Rollavaka village. The only controversy between the parties is whether that village can be said to be an inam village or not as per the definition given under Sec. 2 (d) of the Inams Abolition Act. It is convenient to extract the definition here: 2. ....................................................... (d). "inam village" means a village designated as such in the revenue accounts of the Government; and includes a village so designated immediately before it was abolished and taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) act , 1948 (Madras XXVI of 1948).

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.