MADRAS (NOW ANDHRA) STATE Vs. KALAHASTEESWARASWAMY TEMPLE AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Madras (Now Andhra) State
Kalahasteeswaraswamy Temple And Anr.
Referred Judgements :-
MAD 373) RANGIAH CHETTY V. THE ANDHRA STATE
NAVANEETHA KRISHNA V. RAMANUJULU CHETTY
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, C.J. -
(1.)THIS is an appeal against the order of Venkatarama Ayyar J. allowing an application filed by the trustee of Sri Kalahasteeswaraswamy temple for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus prohibiting the State of Madras from taking possession of the village of Kalahasti.
(2.)THE village of Kalahasti formed part of the ancient Zamindari or Kalahasti, which is one of the impartible estates included in the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). In the year 1791 -1792, the Rajah of Kalahasti granted the village in inam to the temple. At the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, peishkush was fixed in regard to the entire Kalahasti Zamindari not by, taking into account particular assets of the Zamindari, but by computing military service. See Secretary of State v. Raja of Venkatagiri,, ILR 44 Mad 864 :, AIR 1920 PO 168 (A), and Navaneetha Krishna v. Ramanujulu Chetty,, 54 Mad LW 120: ( : : AIR 1942 Mad 56 (B). The effect of that process was that the pre -existing mams, including the inam of the village of Kalahasti, were not excluded from the assets of the Zamindari. The inam of the village of Kalahasti, therefore, continued to be held on a permanent under -tenure under the Zamindar. In the year 1932, the said village was separately registered under Madras Act I of 1876. On 12 -12 -1950, the State of Madras notified the village of Kalahasti as a zamindari estate under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The result of that Notification was that the said estate was abolished and the Government became the owner thereof. The writ of Mandamus was filed on the ground that the State of Madras had no jurisdiction to notify the said village as a Zamindari estate. Venkatarama Ayyar J., held ' on a consideration of the relevant provisions, that the village of Kalahasti was not a zamindari estate and that the notification dated 12 -12 -1950 was erroneous. The State of Madras preferred the above said appeal against the said order. After the Constitution of the Andhra High Court, the said appeal has been transferred to this Court.
The learned Advocate General contended that the legal effect of the separate registration of the village under Madras Act I of 1876 was to put an end to the pre -existing tenure under the Zamindar and to convert it into an estate as defined under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Madras Estates Land Act, directly liable to pay peishkush to the Government, whereas Mr. Vedanthachari, learned Counsel for the Respondent, maintained that the said registration had no such effect, that it was only done, for the limited purpose of separately, allocating the proportionate peishkush payable on the village and that the village continued to be held as an under -tenure notwithstanding such registration.
(3.)THE relevant provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act and Madras Act XXVI of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) may now be read:
MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT.
Section 3 .(1):
(a) any permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari.
(b) any portion of such permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari, which is separately registered in the office of the Collector.
(c) any portion consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified above in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a permanent under -tenure.
MADRAS ACT XXVI of 1943. Section 2:
(3) "Estate" means a zamindari or an under -tenure or an inam estate, (15) "Under -tenure Estate" means an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (e) of the Estates Land Act.
(16) "zamindari estate" means (ii) an estate within the meaning of Section 3 Clause 2 (b) or 2 (c) of the Estates Land Act after excluding there from every portion which is itself an estate under. Section 3 Clause 2 (c) of that Act. Section 3:
With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act:
(b) the entire estate...... shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances.
The aforesaid provisions may be summarised thus. The Estates Land Act recognises for the purpose of that Act five categories of estates embodied in Section 3 (2) of the Estates Land Act. Two of those categories with which we are now concerned are (i) any portion of a permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari, which is separately registered in the office of the Collector, and (ii) any portion of one or more villages of any of the estates specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that section which is held on a permanent under -tenure. Madras Act XXVI of 1948 recognizes three classes of estates zamindari, under -tenure and inam estates and they are directed to be notified under that Act. Under the later Act, an "under -tenure Estate" means an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Madras Estates Land Act and zamindari estate so far as it is relevant for our purpose means an estate within the meaning of Sec, 3 Clause 2 (b) of the Estates Land Act after excluding there from every portion which is itself an estate under Section 3 (2) 1(c) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid provisions that, under the Act, an under -tenure estate is excluded from a Zamindari ertate. It follows that the Kalahasti village, which is held under a permanent under -tenure and, therefore, is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Madras Estates Land Act, is excluded from "zamindari estate". If that is the correct position, the State Government had obviously no power under the Act to notify Kalahasti as a zamindari estate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.