PALACHARALA HYMAVATHAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PARVATIPURAM
LAWS(APH)-1969-11-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 25,1969

PALACHARALA HYMAVATHAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARVATIPURAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMAMURTHY SASTRY STATE OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
A VENKATARAMAMURTHY VS. V VENKAT RAO [REFERRED TO]
KALAMATA VENKAYYA VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PARVATHIPURAM SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AVUDHANULA VENKATA RAMAMURTY VS. V VENKATARAO [LAWS(APH)-1971-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
GOLI VEERRAJU RAMANNA VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(APH)-2009-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
S MALLESH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHAR PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
AVUDHANULA VENKATA RAMAMURTY AND OTHERS VS. V. VENKATARAO AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1970-8-32] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Parthasarathi, J. - (1.)This writ petition has been directed t be posted before a Division Bench on a reference made by Basireddi, J,, When the matter came up before him in the first instance, he came to the conclusion that a question of some importance and which recurs, often, arises for consideration in this case. The learned Judge though that it is necessary to have a clarification or definition of the expression revenue account which occurs in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (1956) hereinafter referred t as the Inams Abolition Act.
(2.)The facts that have given rise to this writ petition lie within a narrow compass. In the affidavit filed by the formed it is stated that the village of Korapa formed part of the Zamindari estate of Salur, and that in the distant past a grant was made of a part of the village, and that the area, which was the subject-matter of the grant, constituted a hamlet of the village of Korapa. The portion so granted, was named Krishnapuram. The grant was recognised by the Government and a title deed No.72, dated 22-1-964 was granted after the inquiry by the Inam Commission. The case of the petitioner is that the entries in the inam fair Register as also the Inam Title deed described the inam as Krishnapuram, hamlet of Korapa.
(3.)The petitioners predecessor-in-title acquired title to Krishnapuram in the year 1873 by purchase; and since then, the possession thereof has been held by the petitioner and her predecessors It is averred by the petitioner that when disputes arose between the tenants and the inamdar suits for eviction has been filed on several occasions and decrees for eviction were obtained and decrees for eviction were obtained in numerous instances. In those proceedings, the defence raised by the tenancy that they acquired occupancy rights was negatived by the courts and adjudication rested on the basis that Krishnapuram was not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The petitioner also referred in the affidavit the decisions under the Madras Act 30 of 1947 and the Madras Act 26 of 1948. Under the latter Act, 26 of 1948l. Under as a result of the suo motu enquiry, that the inam is not an estate. After the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act the Inam Tashildar, Bobili commenced that Krishnapuram constitutes as inam village within the meaning of the Inams Abolition Act. This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer Parvathipuram. The writ petitioner is based on the ground among others that the tribunals failed to take into account the relevant material. It is urged that he decision rested entire on the alphabetical list of villages. Which according to the petitioner cannot be classified as a revenue account. The decision is based on irreliable date and ignores large volume of evidence which the tribunals were bound to take into account.
;


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