P VENKATASWAMI Vs. D S RAMIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding started suo motu by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, under Section 15 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Section 15 (1) reads :

(2.) From the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer the first respondent took an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor. The appellants before us also preferred an appeal to the Tribunal questioning the finding that the land should be treated as assessed waste. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the first respondent, affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the first respondent had failed ed to prove that he had been cultivating the land since 1-7-1945, and allowed the other appeal reversing the decision that the land is to be treated as assessed waste, on the view that the fact that a roytwari patta had once been issued in respect of the land indicated that the land was cultivable.

(3.) The first respondent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal on the two appeals. Civil Revision Petition No. 15 of 1966 directed against the order rejecting the first respondent's claim for a ryotwari patta and Civil Revision No. 807 of 1966 against the order allowing the appeal of the appellants were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment on 21-8-1967. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the fact that a ryotwari patta had previously been issued in respect of the land and the further fact that admittedly since 1950 the land was being cultivated, the only dispute being which of the parties did it, was clear indication that the land was cultivable and as such it could not be treated as assessed waste. However, the High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Pariannan v. Amman Kovil, AIR 1952 Mad 323 (FB) held that the test employed by the Tribunal that the land holder should prove that he had been personally cultivating the land was not the proper test and that it was sufficient if he was able to show that there was an intention to cultivate or resume the land for cultivation. On these findings the High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made in its judgment.