RAJAH YARLAGADDA SIVARAMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this petition is whether a tank situate in the midst of private lands of an erstwhile landholder would fall within the comprehension of section 3 (10) of the Madras Estates Land Act. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is the Zamindar of Devarakota situated in Krishna District. The Estate was notified under the provisions of section 3 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 7th September, 1949 and was taken over by the Government subsequently. In due course, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer under section 12 of the Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta in regard to several items of lands claiming them as his private lands. Amongst them is a tank alleged to be in the middle of his private lands. The Settlement Officer allowed his claim in regard to most of the items but rejected the application in respect of the remaining items including item I, which is the tank in dispute. An appeal preferred to the Estates Abolition Tribunal proved unsuccessful. Thereupon, the aggrieved landholder has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principal point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a ryotwari patta in regard to the tank. This has to be answered with reference to the provisions of the Act. Under section 3 (f) of the Act, the moment an estate is notified under section 3 (a) certain consequences follow, namely, the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 and other enactments applicable to estates as such shall be deemed to have been repealed and the entire estate vests in the Government. Consequent upon this, the quondam landholder has no right other than those recognised under the enactment by force of clause (g). One of the rights conferred upon a landholder is to claim a ryotwari patta in regard to his private land. Section 12 recites :

(3.) We are not concerned with the other provisions of that section, as the controversy in the case centres round the question whether a tank could come within the definition of ' private land ' defined in section 3 (10) of the Madras Estates Land Act. We have, therefore, to turn to section 3 (10) of the Madras Estates Land Act. This section defines ' pivate land ' thus :