Case: Maganti Subramanyan Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2. The central question in this appeal is whether certain transfers of lands alleged to be forest lands made by the 6th respondent herein become void and inoperative under Section 4 of the Act. The said respondent who was a big land-holder granted a patta to his wife, 7th respondent, for Ac. 100-00 of land on November 9, 1944. Another patta was similarly granted to the appellant in respect of Ac. 90-00 of land on November 25, 1944. On the same day, respondent No. 6 granted a third patta for Ac.200-00 of land to respondents 2 to 5. The Act came into force on October 25, 1947. On October 15, 1948 Original petition No. 95 of 1948 was filed in the District Court of Eluru by two ryots for a declaration that the alienations were void and did not confer any rights on the alienees. Thereafter the said petition was split into two parts, O. P. 95/1948 being directed against respondents 1 to 6 while O. P. No. 95-(a) of 1948 was directed against the 7th respondent. The petitions were disposed of by an order of the District Judge dated July 18, 1950 holding that lands covered by the pattas were forest lands and all the alienations were void and inoperative. A Civil Revision Petition was filed in the High Court of Madras by respondents 1 to 5 against the order of the District Judge. This was numbered as C. R. P. No. 22 of 1951. Respondent No. 7 filed a Miscellaneous Petition No. 9534 of 1950 in the High Court of Madras. By order dated 6th August, 1962 both the petitions were dismissed by a single Judge of the Madras High Court. This order was however set aside in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondents1 to 5 (No. 261 of 1952) wherein it was held that the petitioners as ryots had no right to maintain the petition but reasonable opportunity should be given to the State of get transposed as the petitioner. The State Government thereafter got itself transposed as the petitioner. The District Court however held that the petition was not maintainable by reason of the repeal of the Act by reason of the passing of a subsequent Act, XXVI of 1948 styled the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948. Against this the State Government filed a Revision Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh numbering 1555 of 1955. The High Court held that the dismissal of the petition on the ground of repeal of the Act was improper and that the petition should be disposed of on the merits remitted the matter to the District Judge. By a judgment dated November 30, 1960 the District Judge allowed the petition negativing the contentions of the respondent but holding that the lands were forest lands and transfers thereof were void. The appellant and others filed Civil Revision Petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which were disposed of and dismissed by a common judgment dated August 24, 1965. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
In terms the section was only prospective and it did not seek to impeach any transaction which was effected before the Act and was not applicable to transactions anterior to the Act.In our opinion Section 56 (1) of the later Act to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel does not fall for consideration in this case and the disputes covered by that section do not embrace the question before usThis shows that even if there was a repeal any investigation started before the repeal would have to be continued and legal proceedings under the Act could be prosecuted as if the repealing Act had not been passed7. Lastly, counsel contended thatsub-section (1) of Section20 of the later Act as originally enacted applied to forest lands and therefore the later Act became applicable thereto.The original section was however substituted, for another by Section 9 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) (Amendment) Act, 1956 which was to be deemed to have come into force on April 19, 1949 being the date on which the Act of 1948 originally came into force. The section as it now stands did not confer any jurisdiction on the Settlement Officer to determine any question as to whether any land was forest land within the meaning of the Act and consequently the adjudication by the District Judge under sub-section (4) of Section 4 was quite competent.