Case: P. Venkataswami and Another Vs. D.S. Ramireddy and Another

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 Periannan v. A. S. Amman Kovil (AIR 1952 Mad 323 : ILR 1952 Mad 741 : (1952) 1 MLJ 71 ) held that the test employed by the tribunal that the landholder 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. 4. It is the case of both parties that the land is cultivable and cannot be treated as assessed waste. It would appear that the High Court also agreed with the tribunal that the land was cultivable which means that the High Court affirmed the order of the tribunal allowing the appeal preferred to it by the appellants before us, and Civil Revision Petition No. 807 of 1966 should have been disposed of accordingly. Therefore, the order of the High Court directing the tribunal to hear afresh also this appeal seems to be an obvious mistake. The matter is, however, further complicated by the statement made by the appellants in their special leave petition that the intended appeal was against the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 807 of 1966. On the judgment of the High Court the matter that remained to be disposed of was the first respondents claim for a ryotwari patta which was the subject-matter of the appeal to the tribunal preferred by the first respondent. On reading of the petition it is plain that the evidence of the appellants was really against the order remitting the case of the first respondent to the tribunal for a fresh hearing; the tribunal, as already stated, had decided against the first respondent. The present appeal appears to us to be directed against the common judgment of the High Court, limited to that part of it which deals with the claim of the first respondent, and the reference to the Revision Case No. 807 only, it seems, as Mr. Jayaram, learned for the appellants submitted, was a slip. For the first respondent Mr. Rao took an objection that the appellants before us were not parties in Civil Revision Case No. 15 of 1966 and that, as such, they could not appeal against the order passed in the case. The appellants who had filed objections to the first respondents application for a ryotwari patta might properly have been parties to the appeal the first respondent had filed before the tribunal and, though they were not impleaded as parties, the tribunal appears to have disposed of the appeal after hearing them. The appellants thus were entitled to be made parties in the in the Civil Revision Petition No. 15 of 1966. However, it appears that even in the High Court they heard not only on the character of the land which formed the subject-matter of Civil Revision Case No. 807 of 1966 but also on the question whether the first respondent was entitled to a ryotwari patta which was the controversy in Civil Revision Petition No. 15 of 1966. We therefore decided to hear the appeal on merits. 5. The only question that arises for decision is whether the High Court was right in holding that the requirements of Section 13(b)(iii) of the Act is satisfied if the landholder is able to show that there was an intention to cultivate or resume the land for cultivation. The High Court directed the tribunal to reconsider the question from this aspect. For the view it had taken, the High Court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Periannan v. A. S. Amman Kovil (supra). The Madras Full Bench decision on this point is based on a construction of Section 3(10) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. This Court in T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram v. T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ((1968) 2 SCR 754 : AIR 1968 SC 1005 ) construing the same Section 3(10) which defines private land held at pages 765-766 of the report : It seems to us that the definition read as a whole indicates clearly that the ordinary test for private land is the test of retention by the landlord for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision. No doubt, such lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character; but it is not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the warams in the lands and has been letting them out on short term leases. Having thus stated the law, this Court dismissed the appeal with the observation that in the present case there is no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder. Thus even on the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 considered by the Madras Full Bench, this Court appears to have taken a different view. Apart from this, the provision we are concerned with namely Section 13(b)(iii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, requires as a condition that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour. We are unable to agree that the words has cultivated could imply a mere intention to cultivate. In our opinion, in view of the clear terms of Section 13(b)(iii) there is no warrant for a reconsideration of the question by the tribunal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Having thus stated the law, this Court dismissed the appeal with the observation that in the present case there is no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder. Thus even on the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 considered by the Madras Full Bench, this Court appears to have taken a different view. Apart from this, the provision we are concerned with namely Section 13(b)(iii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, requires as a condition that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour. We are unable to agree that the words has cultivated could imply a mere intention to cultivate. In our opinion, in view of the clear terms of Section 13(b)(iii) there is no warrant for a reconsideration of the question by the tribunal.