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

This appeal by this special leave arises out of a proceeding started suo moto 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 :      15. Determination of lands in which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta under forgoing provisions.(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under Section 12, 13 or 14 as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed.      The first respondent who purchased the land in question on May 12, 1950 claimed a ryotwari patta in respect of the same under Section 13(b)(iii) which is in these terms :      13. Lands in inam estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta.In the case of an Inam estate, the landholder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of(a) * * * *      (b) (i) * * * *      (ii) * * * *      (iii) all lands not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, clause (16),s (a), (b) and (c) of the Estate Land Act, or (iii) forest lands which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that day.      Explanation.Cultivate in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, garden and orchards, but does not include the rearing of tops of spontaneous growth.It is clear that the landholder in order to be entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 13(b)(iii) must prove that he has cultivated the land himself or by his own servants or hired labour from July 1, 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of the land from the date. It appears that before the suo moto enquiry under Section 15(1) had commenced a ryotwari patta in respect of the same land had been granted jointly in the names of the first respondent and the two appellants before us. This patta was however cancelled as it had been issued without enquiry and the present enquiry under Section 15(1) was started. The appellants preferred objections to the claim put forward by the first respondent stating that they were in possession of the land and had been cultivating it for the last 30 years. To refute the appellants claims of possession, the first respondent filed a certified copy of the judgment in Original Suit No. 245 of 1959 of the District Munsifs Court, Madanpalle, which was instituted by the first respondent for declaration of his title to the land in dispute and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants, from interfering with the peaceful possession. This suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the first respondents possession of the land. The first respondent also filed the certified copy of the decree (Ex.) passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, affirming in appeal the decision of the District Munsif. The Assistant Officer disregarded Exhibits3 on the view that the appellants were not parties to the suit. This was plainly wrong as it appears from these exhibits that the appellants were the defendants in the suit. However the Assistance Settlement Officer also found that the first respondent had failed to prove personal and continuous cultivation from July 1, 1945 his own case being that he had reclaimed the land after his purchase on May 12, 1950. The Assistant Settlement Officer therefore rejected the first respondents claim and held that the land would be treated as assessed waste.

Reasoning:
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.