TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after the taking over of the estate by the Government there was no longer any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. The Tehsildar dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground, among others, that the respondents had occupancy rights in the land. The landlord preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the appeal on the ground that the petition for eviction was not maintainable since the question as to who was the lawful ryot in respect of any holding in an estate had to be decided by the Settlement Officer under Section 56(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, and that the decision of such question was within the exclusive competence of the Settlement Officer. A revision petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court again for the reason that the question as to who was entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta had to be decided by the Settlement Officer under Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted Tribunals. On general principles, the special Tribunals constituted by the Act must necessarily be held to have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes entrusted by the statute to them for their adjudication. 4. Shri Vepa P. Sarathi's submission was that Section 56(1)(c) did not enable the Settlement Officer to decide the question as to who was the lawful ryot of a holding every time such question arose and for all purposes but only when such question arose in connection with the matters dealt with by Section 55 and Section 56(1)(a) and (b). In other words the argument was that Section 56(1)(c) was controlled by Section 55 and Section 56(1)(a) and (b) and that an enquiry into the question as to who was the lawful ryot of a holding under Section 56(1)(c) was permissible only for the purpose of identifying the person liable to pay the arrear of rent which had accrued in respect of the holding before the taking over of the estate. The submission of Shri Vepa P. Sarathi is supported by the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya and Ors. (supra). We are, however, unable to see any justification for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of a land-holder. Section 3(f) provides that the relationship of the landholder and ryot shall, as between them, be extinguished. Section 3(g) provides that ryots in the estate shall, as against the Government be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on them by or under the Act. Section 11 confers on every ryot in an estate the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti land which was included or ought to have been included in the holding on the notified date. Sections 12, 13 and 14 confer on the land-holder the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of private land in a Zamindari, Inam and Under-tenure estate respectively. Section 15(1) provides for enquiry by the Settlement Officer into claims by a land-holder for a ryotwari patta, Under Sections 12, 13 and 14. Section 15(2) provides for an appeal to the Tribunal from the decision of the Settlement Officer and it declares that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law. Section 16 imposes on every person, whether a land-holder or a ryot who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act in respect of any land, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the applicability of Section 56(1)(c) must be held to be intimately and integrally connected with those provisions. We think that the approach of the Full Bench was wrong. Apart from the fact that Section 55 and 56(1)(a)(b) and (c) occur under the heading Miscellaneous , and, therefore, a contextual interpretation may not be quite appropriate, the Full Bench overlooked the serious anomaly created by its conclusion. The anomaly is that while express provision is found in Section 15 of the Act for the adjudication of claims by land-holders for the grant of ryotwari pattas., there is, if the Full Bench is correct, no provision for the adjudication of claim's by ryots for the grant of ryotwari pattas. It would indeed be anomalous and ludicrous and reduce the Act to an oddity, if the Act avowedly aimed at reform by the conferment of ryotwari pattas on ryots and the abolition of intermediaries, is to be held not to contain any provision for the determination of the vital question as to who was the lawful ryot of a holding. The object of the Act is to protect ryots and not to leave them in the wilderness. When the Act provides a machinery in Section 56(1)(c) to discover who t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
