V VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(APH)-1955-10-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 10,1955

V.VENKATA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VARADARAJASWAMIVARI TEMPLE VS. SRI KRISHNAPPA GOVINDA [LAWS(MAD)-1958-7-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law. The petitioner herein filed a suit on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vizianagaram, for a declaration that the notification published by the Government declaring Rollavaka Village as an under-tenure estate under the provisions of Madras Rent Reduction Act (XXX of 1947), is wholly without jurisidction and void and for an injunction restraining the Government from enforcing the notification. Issue i was framed in the following terms :- "Is Rollavaka Village not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act and hence the Rent Reduction Notification No. 2729 published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 9th May, 1950, Part I, at page 1302, in respect of Rollavaka Village is void and without jurisdiction?"
(2.)The petitioner applied in L. A. No. 976 of 1952 for recasting the issue and throwing the burden on the Government. His contention was that the burden of proof lay on the person who contends that Rollavaka was an estate and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Munisif rejected his application and the Civil Revision Petition has been consequently filed in this Court against the said order.
(3.)The simple question that arises for decision is : Who has to prove that Rollavaka is an estate and that the notification is a valid one. The provisions of Madras Act (XXX of 1947) apply to all estates as defined in section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 [vide section I (2)]. There is no provision in the Act itself under which any special tribunal is appointed to decide the dispute as to whether a particular property is or is not an estate within the meaning of the Act. Section 2 (i) of the Act empowers the Provincial Government to appoint a Special Officer in any estate or estates for the purpose of recommending fair and equitable rates of rent for the ryoti lands in such estate cr estates. It was therefore held by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Chandra v. The Madras State, (1952) 1 M.L.J. 206, 207. that " It is obvious that if a particular property is not an estate, such property would not be governed by the provisions of the Act and any order published by the Government under section 3 (2) of the Act would not be of any legal consequence or force."
;


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