NADIMINDI VENKATANARAYANA SWAMI Vs. KARANAM LAKSHMU NAIDU
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 01,1955

NADIMINDI VENKATANARAYANA SWAMI Appellant
VERSUS
KARANAM LAKSHMU NAIDU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU V. SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE V. MALLAYYA [REFERRED TO]
ADEMMA V. SATYADHYANA THIRTHASWAMI VARU [REFERRED TO]
SISHTLA JANAKIRAMA SASTRI VS. JAGANI GOPALAM [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASWAMI VS. PERUMAL [DISTINGUISHED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appliction under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records and to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment in A.S. No. 48 of 1952 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The Miscellaneous Settlement Officer, Bobbili took action suo motu and issued notices under section g of the Madrax Act XXVI of 1948 to determine whether Nagur in Parvathipuram taluk is an Inam Estate as defined in that Act. It was contended before him by the Inamdars that the village is not an Inam Estate, while the ryots contended that the village is an Inam Estate. The Settlement officer held that Nagur is not an 'estate' as defined in section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act and that therefore it cannot be an " Inam Estate ". The tenants of Nagur preferred an appeal under section 9 (4) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 against the order of the Miscellaneous Settlement Officer to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and remanded the case to be disposed of afresh after giving a finding on the question whether the inamdars have Kudivram right also in the village.
(2.)It is contended before me that the view taken by the Estates Abolition Tribunal is on the face of it manifestly erroneous and is opposed to the judgment of the High Court in S.A. No. 2416 of 1949. The facts as they emerge from the judgment of the Tribunal and the documents filed before it are these : Thurakanaiduyalasa is a hamlet of Nagur and it was granted in the year 1717 A.D., while Nagur was granted in the year 1770 by a later grant which grant also confirmed the earlier grant of Thurakanaiduvalasa in 1717. It was contended before the Estates Abolition Tribunal that Thurakanaiduvalasa being a hamlet of Nagur and it having been granted in 1717, the subsequent grant of Nagur, excluding Thurakanaiduvalasa should be deemed to be a portion of the village and it cannot theiefore be the grant of a whole village. The Tribunal negatived this contention and held that Nagur is an 'estate' as defined in section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, as amended in 1945. The reasoning by which the Tribunal reached this conclusion is that the Explanation I to section 3 (2) (d) provides that the grant of a named or whole village would bring the village within the purview of an 'estate' notwithstanding the fact that there were minor inams existing by the date of the major grant, and therefore, if Thurakanaiduvalasa is considered to, be a portion of Nagur, it would certainly come under the definition of a 'minor Inam' like any other Inam which was in existence by the date of the major grant of the village of Nagur and therefore Explanation I to section 3 (2) (d) clearly covers this minor inam also.
(3.)In S.A. No. 2416 of 1949, Satyanarayana Rao, J., held that Thurakanaiduvalasa is no; the grant of a whole village or of a named village and that therfore it is not an 'estate'. The question as to whether Nagur, the parent village is an 'estate' or not did not fall for consideration by him.
;


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