NADIMINDI VENKATANARAYANA SWAMI Vs. KARANAM LAKSHMU NAIDU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NADIMINDI VENKATANARAYANA SWAMI
KARANAM LAKSHMU NAIDU
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.