BHIMASANKARAM, J. - (1.) The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the app appellant for a declaration that the village of East Thankkellapadu is neither an estate within the meaning of the Madras Act XXX of 1947 nor an inam estate within the meaning of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and also for a declaration that a certain Notification published by the Madras State Government and an order passed by the Madras Estates Abolition Tribunal are void; it also sought a permanent injunction restraining the State of Andhra Pradesh (now Andhra Pradesh within the territory of which State the above village is now comprised, and hereinafter referred to as the State) represented by the District Collector, Guntur, the 1st defendant in the suit, from taking any action in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification or order. As the tenants of the village are interested in the reliefs asked for, the defendants 2 to 6 who are some of the tenants of the Village are impleaded under Order 1, rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, as representatives of all the tenants of the Village.
(2.) The plaint alleged that the village of East Thakkellapadu was granted to the ancestors of the plaintiff as a shrotriem, that it did not consist of a Whole village nor was it expressed to be of a named village; that thus, it is not an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore not amenable to the provision of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act (XXX of 1947); it is also consequently not an inam estate as defined by the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). The officials of the 1st respondent, however, initiated proceedings under both the Acts. The local Settlement Officer held, in proceedings taken under section 9 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, that the village constituted an inam estate. The plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision. But it was dismissed an 24th July, 1951. Thereupon, the plaintiff applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs for certiorari against the action taken by the 1st defendant's official under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act (XXX of 1947) and against the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal.
(3.) The 1st defendant (then representing the State of Madras) contended in both the writs that the remedy of the plaintiff in a civil Court. The writ petitions were ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff in order that he may institute appropriate proceedings in the ordinary Courts. The 1st defendant waived the notice of suit required by section 80, Civil Procedure Code. Both the statutes above mentioned are ultra vires of the powers of the Legislature and void as contravening section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and also as being inconsistent with the fundamental rights declared in favour of every citizen by Articles 19(1) and 31(2) of the Constitution. In any case, the Government had no right to deal with the village under either of the Acts as the village is not an 'estate'. The cause of action in the plaint was slated to have arisen on 24th July, 1951, when the Estates Abolition Tribunal rendered is decision, as also on 2nd May, 1950, the date when the Notification was issued applying the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act (XXX of 1947) to the Village. In answer to the suit claim the State has contended in its written statement that the suit is not maintainable under section 8(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and under section 65(1) of the Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) as the civil Courts have been deprived of their jurisdiction under those sections to questions any orders made under the Acts. The village of East Thakkellapadu is both an 'estate' and an 'inam estate'. It is not true that the State contended in the writ petitioner that the remedy of the plaintiff was by a suit in the ordinary Courts. The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's petitions with the observation that the remedy of the petition appeared to be by way of suit. The plaint assertions that the statutes in question are ultra vires of the powers of the Legislature and that they involve an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the Constitution are denied.;