K. Narasareddi vs State of Andhra

Bhimasankaram, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Safyauarayana Raju J., declining the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus "directing the Andhra. State, represented by the Collector of Ncllore districl: to fc.rhear from taking over possession or interfering with the Petitioner''s possession in respect of his lands" in Ramanujapuram shotrium, Kavali taluk.

The facts are simple, Ramanujapuram shotrium. a pre-settlement under-tenure estate in the Kalahasti Zamindary was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Reward) Act (XXVI of 1940), with effect on and front -9-1950 and taken over by the Government. The Petitioner and another are in possession and enjoyment of certain lands within that estate by virtue of a purchase made by an ancestor of theirs in the year 1890 from the Zamindar under a registered sale deed dated 25-2-1S90. The sale comprised two items the first described as "the land known as Thoorpu beedu'' and the second described as ''wet land under the tank bund." In regard to the first !tem, there is the further description that it is Sagu Boedu (Cultivable- dry land) of a certain extent inclusive of "the forest, stone-quarries, etc." and described a,", having been -already in the possession and enjoyment of the purchaser by way of cowls. The Appellant claiming to be in the position of a land-holder presented an application u/s 14 of the Act for tho grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of 330 out of 380 acres, which is the total extent of these lands to the Assistant Settlement Officer. That section provides for the grant of a ryotwari patta to a land-holder in respect of lands in an under-tenure estate. The Settlement Officer he''d that the land "is a pure kancha used for the purpose of grazing cattle" and as there is no provision in the Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of such lands, he rejected the application. On appeal, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor confirmed his order. It agreed with the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the land in question was never cultivated and never,, intended to bo cultivated and as such cannot be brought under any one of the categories mentioned in Section 13 with reference to which the grant of a ryotwari patta is to be made u/s 14 of the Act. It also observed that neither Section 19 nor Section 20 would apply. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed the above writ petition.

The position now taken up by him in the petition is that the sale deed evidences a transaction by which the then land-holder sold the lands to his family for a non-agricultural purpose and that therefore toe family is entitled to the benefit of either Section 19 or Section 20 of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows:

I State that the statutory benefits conferred under Sections 19 & 20 of the Act cannot be evaded or denied and the mere fact that at a later point of time, the person who obtained the benefits referred to in Sections 19 and 20 became a land-holder, will not deprive him of the rights." He therefore, sought an injunction against the Government restraining them from depriving him and his co-owner of the possession of the lands pending adjudication of their rights under either of these sections.

As already stated, that petition was dismissed by our learned brother.

Now, in this appeal. Tt is frankly conceded before us by Mr. Vedantachary, learned Counsel for the Appellant that Section 20 has no application to the facts of the present case. But, he maintains that the Appellant is entitled to a consideration of his claim u/s 19. He points out that while some of the lands may be cultivable the remainder consisting of forest land and quarries, answer the description of "non-ryoti lands sold for non-agricultural purposes'''' within the meaning of that section. Mis contention, therefore, is that the Appellant cannot be ousted from possession of the latter without a determination of such rights as he may have under that section. His argument may be summarised as follows:- While it is true that the entire estate, u/s 3 of the Act, stands transferred and vests in the Government free of all encumbrances, on and from the notified date, followed by the determination of all rights and interests that might have been created by landholder, such vesting is a subject to the savings expressly provided in the Act, That section further provides that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta, whether as a ryot or a land-holder pending the decision of certain authorities as to the rights claimed under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14. In addition to the rights of the ryot and the land-Holder saved by these sections, there are also the savings made by Sections 19 and 20. The rights and interests so saved too "do not cease and determine" under the vesting section. The Government is, therefore, not entitled to possession, for instance, of ryoti or non-ryoti lands sold by any land-holder'' for a non-agricultural purpose before 1-7-1945 because under S 19 of the Act, the buyer shall be entitled to keep such land, subject to the payment by him to the Government of the ryotwari or other assessment or the ground rent which may be imposed upon the land. Curiously, no authority has been prescribed under the Act or under the rules made thereunder empowered to adjudicate upon rights claimed under this section. Where a right under this Section 1s set up in regard to some land, can the Government take them over, without the right set up being negatived by a competent authority? The Appellant apprehends that because his claims under " Section 14 has been rejected by the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, and there is no forum to decide his rights, he may be deprived of the possession of the lands by executive flat without any investigation of his claim u/s 19.

He fears that once the Government takes over possession, he may have no remedy because Section 65 of the Act precludes suits impeaching any action of the Government taken or purporting to De taken under the Act. Now, Sub-section (1) of Section 65 which only is material for our present purpose Is as follows:

(1) No suit or other proceeding shall lie against the Government'' for any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or any rules made thereunder

The question is: what is the meaning and effect of this Sub-section To say the least its language is not. very clear. It seems to us, however, that this section confers immunity on the Government only from claims for damages in respect of acts done or purporting to be done under the Act. It does not mean that the Government can do anything under colour of the Act and be free from interference by any Court; For instance if a particular property is'' not an estate at all within the meaning of the Act, the Government could not take it into their bands purporting to do so under the Act, without any remedy being open .to the owner against them. This view is supported by authority, Vide Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya and Others Vs. The State of Madras, We think that on the same reasoning, if the Government takes over land which a person is entitled to keep by virtue of rights expressly saved by the Act and there is no machinery provided in the Act for the adjudication of such a right, the aggrieved person may well seek his remedy in the Civil Court. Where a special forum is provided by tlio Act, of course the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away by necessary implication but where there is no such provision, the ordinary Civil Courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction to see that the'' action of the Government is within the terms of the statute.

In the present case it is conceded for the Government that there is no such forum. We, therefore, must hold that it will be open to the Civil Court to adjudicate upon such a claim. We cannot see what directions can be given by this Court in such a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court of India I has ruled that the power under this article can-mot be exercised with a view to grant an interim (relief without finally determining the rights of the ''parties - Vide The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, . Therefore we cannot direct the Government to forbear from taking over possession of these lands without determining the rights of the parties. We cannot determine the rights of the parties, because that is a matter depending upon evidence which is not before us. That being so, the Petitioner''s proper remedy is by way "of a suit for a declaration of his rights and for the Issue of an injunction restraining the government from taking over possession. He cannot obtain any relief In these proceedings.

The result is that this appeal fails and is missed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.