V TIRUPATHIRAYUDU Vs. M VENKATACHARYULU
LAWS(APH)-1955-1-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 31,1955

V.TIRUPATHIRAYUDU Appellant
VERSUS
M.VENKATACHARYULU Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

CHADA VENKATANARAYANAVADHANI VS. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER BOBBILI [LAWS(APH)-1964-9-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A. S. No. 300 of 1950 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizinagaram, and to quash the order therein.( The Inam Settlement Officer, Vijiawada, acting under S. 9 of Madras Act 26 of 1948 took action suo motu for determining whether Vaddimukkala Agraharam in Bapatla Taluk of Guntur District is "an Inam Estate", as defined is S. 2 (7), Madras Estates Abolition Act. On a consideration of the material evidence before him the Inam Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the Agraharam became an "Estate" only by virtue of Act 18 of 1936 and that it is not an Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 2 (7), Madras Estates Abolition Act.(3) Against this order, the ryots preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizinagaram. The Tribunal held that no one portion of the village is an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3
(2.)(d) of Madras Act 1 of 1908 and much less an "Inam Estate" within the meaning of S. 2 (7) of Act 26 of 1948. The reasons which weighed with the Abolition Tribunal in reaching this conclusion were that the main grant was confirmed under T. D. No. 931 and the grants of other Inams were confirmed under separate title-deeds bearing T. D. Nos. 932, 934, 933 and 935 and that therefore the agraharam is not an Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 2 (7). The ryots have filed this writ petitioner to quash the Order of the Tribunal passed in appeal.
(3.)In -- T. Seshayya v. Narsimhacharulu, AIR 1955 Mad 252 (A) on the file of the Madras High Court, Subba Rao J. (as be then was) and Panchapakesh Ayyar J. considered the question as to whether the sell - same Vaddimukkala Agraharam is an estate before the Madras Estates Land Third Amendment Act (18 of 1936). In their judgment dated 6.5.1954, the learned Judges, on a very exhaustive review of all the material documents, held that the lands in the Agraharam were not ryoti lands before the "Third Amendment Act, 1936. They observed as follows :
"Vaddimukkala Agraharam wherein these lands are situated, was only an inam village, not falling within the definition of an "Estate" till the Third Amendment to the Estate Land Act was passed in 1936."

;


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