http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MUDDADA CHAYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARNAM NARAYANA AND ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1979

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1320            1979 SCR  (3) 201  1979 SCC  (3)  42  CITATOR INFO :  R          1980 SC 133  (2)  F          1984 SC1726  (7)  D          1986 SC 794  (15)

ACT:      Andhra Pradesh  (Andhra Area)  Estates  (Abolition  and Conversion  into  Ryotwari)  Act  (A.P.  Act  26  of  1948), Sections 56(1)(c) 55, 11 and 15-Whether operation of Section 56(1)(c) is  limited only to the purposes of sections 55 and 56(1)(a) and (b)-Interpretation of a stature.

HEADNOTE:      Under Section  56(1)(c) of  the Andhra  Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates  (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, "where,  after an estate is notified, a dispute arises as to  (a) whether  any rent  due from  a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who  the lawful  ryot in  respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer". Section 56(2) of  the Act  provides for  an appeal  to  the  Estates Abolition Tribunal  against the  decision of  the Settlement Officer whose decision was final and not to be questioned in any court of law.      The petition  filed before  the Tahsildar,  Pathapatnam under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act by the appellant, for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent was dismissed on the ground, among others that the  respondents had  occupancy rights in the land. The appeal before  the Revenue  Divisional Officer  Tekkali  was dismissed 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. In the revision petition filed before it under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh agreed with the appellate order.      Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, ^      HELD: 1.  Interpretation of  a  statute  contextual  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

otherwise must  further and  not frustrate the object of the statute. [207 D]      The object  of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and  Conversion into  Ryotwari) Act,  1948 is  to protect ryots  and not to leave them in wilderness. When the Act provides a machinery in Section 56(1)(c) to discover who the lawful ryot of a holding was, it is not for the Court to denude the Act of all meaning by confining the provisions to the bounds of Section 55 and 56(1) (a) and (b) on the ground of "contextual interpretation". [207 C-D] 202      2. The  scope of  section 56(1)(c) cannot be restricted to mean  that it  was controlled  by Section 55 and 56(1)(a) and (b)  and that an enquiry into the question as to who was the  lawful  ryot  of  a  holding  under  that  section  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.[204 E-G]      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 ryotwary 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.  Section 56(1)(c)  is indeed such a  provision. A  contextual interpretation  may not  be quite appropriate  in view  of the fact that Sections 55 and 56(1)(a) and  (b) occur  under the  heading ’Miscellaneous’. Any  other   interpretation  would   lead  to   conflict  of jurisdiction and  the implementation  of the  Act  would  be thrown into disarray. [206 F, 207 A, B-C]      Munuswami Naidu  (died) & Ors., v. R. Venkata Reddy and Ors., A.I.R. 1978 A.P. 200 (F.B.); approved.      3. The  Andhra Pradesh  Estates Abolition Act is a self contained Code  in which  a provision  is also  made for the adjudication of  various types  of disputes arising after an estate is  notified by  specially constituted  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. [204 D-E]      Appanna v.  Sriramamurthy, [1958]  1  Andh.  W.R.  420; approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1760- 1763/69.      Appeals by  Special Leave  from the Judgment and Decree dated 25-10-1967  of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Application Nos. 342-345/64.      Vepa P. Sarathi and A. V. Rangam for the Appellant.      Ex-parte for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-The petitioner who lost before the Subordinate Tribunals and the High Court is the appellant in this appeal  by special  leave. Alleging  that  he  was  the landlord and  that  the  respondents  were  his  tenants  in respect of  certain lands in Bhommika village, the appellant filed  petition  before  the  Tehsildar,  Pathapatnam  under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act for the eviction of the respon- 203 dents on  the ground  of default  in payment  of  rent.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

respondents pleaded  that the lands were situated in an Inam Estate which had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)  Estates (Abolition and  Conversion into  Ryotwari)  Act,  1948,  and that, they  and their  ancestors, who  had occupancy  rights were always  in cultivating  possession of the lands. It was also pleaded 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 Conversion into Ryotwari) Act  and that  the decision  of such  question was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer. The appellant  has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.      Shri Vepa P. Sarathi, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that  the view  expressed by the High Court regarding the exclusive  jurisdiction of  the  Settlement  Officer  to decide the  question as  to who  was the  lawful ryot  of  a holding was  not good  law in view of the decision of a Full Bench of  three Judges  of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya & Ors.      It is  not disputed  that the  lands  are  situated  in Bhommika village.  It is  not also  disputed  that  Bhommika village was in Inam estate and that it was taken over by the Government  under  the  provisions  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh (Andhra  Area)   Estates  (Abolition   and  Conversion  into Ryotwari) Act.  The appellant  claims that  he is the lawful ryot of  the lands  in dispute  and that the respondents are his tenants.  On the  other hand  the respondents claim that they are the lawful ryots of 204 the holding.  The question  at  issue  between  the  parties therefore is,  whether the  appellant or the respondents are the lawful  ryots of  the holding. Under Section 56(1)(e) of the Andhra  Pradesh (Andhra  Area)  Estates  (Abolition  and Conversion into  Ryotwari) Act  "where, after  an estate  is notified, a  dispute arises  as to  (a) whether any rent due from a  ryot for  any fasli  year is  in arrear  or (b) what amount of  rent is  in arrear  or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of  any holding  is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement  Officer".  Section  56(2)  provides  for  an appeal  to   the  Estates  Abolition  Tribunal  against  the decision of the Settlement Officer and further provides that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be liable to  be questioned  in any  Court of law. Prima facie, therefore, the  question as to who is the lawful ryot of any holding, if  such question  arises  for  decision  after  an estate is  notified, has  to be  resolved by  the Settlement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Officer and  by the Estates Abolition Tribunal under Section 56 (1) (c) and 56(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act. The  Andhra Pradesh  Estates Abolition  Act is  a  self contained code  in which  provision is  also  made  for  the adjudication of  various types  of disputes arising after an estate is  notified, by  specially constituted 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.      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  & Ors. (supra). We are, however, unable to see any justification for restricting the scope of  Section 56(1)(c)  in the  manner suggested by Shri Sarathi. We  will briefly  indicate our  reasons for holding that the  scope of Section 56(1) (c) is not to be restricted as was  done by  the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cherukuru  Muthayya  v.  Gadde  Gopalakrishnayya  &  Ors. (supra). We 205 are fortunately relieved of the necessity of considering the matter more  elaborately  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the decision in  Cherukuru Muthayya  v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya & Ors. on this part of the case has since been over-ruled by a Full Bench  of five  Judges of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh in  I. Munuswami  Naidu (died)  & Ors. v. R. Venkata Reddy &  Ors. after  a thorough and exhaustive consideration of the  question. We  may  also  add  here  that  until  the decision in  Cherukuru Muthayya  v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya & Ors., for several years it was understood that Section 56(1) (c) conferred  complete and  exclusive jurisdiction  on  the Settlement Officer  to decide  rival claims of ryots for the grant of  ryotwari patta  and Section 55 or 56(1)(a) and (b) were never understood as controlling Section 56(1)(c).      A brief  resume of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra  Area)   Estates  (Abolition   and  Conversion  into Ryotwari)  Act   relevant  for   our  present   purpose   is permissible here.  As stated  in the  preamble the  Act  was enacted  to   provide  for   the  repeal  of  the  Permanent Settlement, the acquisition of the Rights of land-holders in permanently  settled  and  certain  other  estates  and  the introduction of  the ryotwari  settlement in  such  estates. Section 1(4)  provides for  the notification  of estates and Section 3 enumerates the consequences of notifying an estate under Section  1(4) of  the Act. In particular Section 3 (b) provides that  the entire  estate shall stand transferred to the Government  and vest  in them  free of  all encumbrances Section 3(c)  provides that all rights and interests created in/or over  the estate  by the  land-holder shall  cease and determine as  against the  Government. Section 3(d) empowers the Government  to take  possession of  the estate but saves

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

from dispossession  any person  who the Government considers is prima  facie entitled  to  a  ryotwari  patta  until  the question whether  he is  actually entitled  to such patta is decided by  the Settlement  officer in the case of a ryot or by the  Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal 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 206 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, the liability to pay to the Government the assessment  that may  be lawfully  imposed on  the land. Section 21  to 23  provide for  the survey  of estates,  the manner   of    affecting   ryotwari   settlement   and   the determination of  the land-revenue.  Sections 55 to 68 occur under the  heading "Miscellaneous".  Section 55 provides for the collection of rent which had accrued before the notified date. Section  56  provides  for  the  decision  of  certain disputes arising  after an  estate is  notified. It provides for the decision of a dispute as to (a) whether any rent due from a  ryot for  any fasli  year is  in arrear  or (b) what amount of  rent is  in arrear  or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of  any holding  is. The  dispute is  required to be decided by  the Settlement  Officer. Against the decision of the  Settlement  Officer,  an  appeal  is  provided  to  the Tribunal and  the decision of the Tribunal is declared final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law.      Now the  Act broadly  confers on  every  tenant  in  an estate the  right to  obtain a  ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands  which were  included  or  ought  to  have  been included in  his holding before the notified date and on the land-holder the  right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of lands  which belonged  to him before the notified date as his private  lands. The  Act makes express provision for the determination of  claims by  landholders for  the  grant  of ryotwari patta  in respect  of the alleged private lands. If there is  provision for the determination of the claims of a landholder for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of his alleged private  lands, surely,  in  an  Act  aimed  at  the abolition of intermediaries and the introduction of ryotwari settlement, there  must be a provision for the determination of the  claims of  ryots for  the grant  of ryotwari  patta. Section 56(1)  is clearly such a provision. But in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya & Ors (supra) it was held that  an   enquiry  as  to  who  was  the  lawful  ryot  was permissible under  Section 56(1) (c) for the limited purpose of fastening  the liability  to pay arrear of rent which had accrued before a notified date and for no other purpose. The conclusion of  the Full  Bench was  based  entirely  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

supposed context  in which the provision occurs. The learned Judges held  that Section  56(1) (c)  occurred so closely on the heels  of Section  55 and Section 56(1)(a) and (b), that the applicability  of Section  56(1)(c) must  be held  to be "intimately and integrally connected" 207 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 over looked 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  claims  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 the lawful ryot of a holding has, it is not for the Court  to denude the Act of all meaning by confining the provision to  the bounds of Section 55 and 56(1) (a) and (b) on the ground of "contextual interpretation". Interpretation of a  statute, contextural or otherwise must further and not frustrate the  object of  the statute. We are, therefore, of the view that Cherukuru Muthuyya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya & ors. (supra)  was wrongly  decided in so far as it held that ambit of  Section 56(1)(c)  was controlled by Section 55 and Section 56(1)  (a) and  (b). We do not think it necessary to consider the  matter  in  further  detail  in  view  of  the elaborate consideration  which has been given to the case by the later  Full Bench  of five  Judges of  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  in T.  Muniswami Naidu  (died) &  Ors v.  R. Venkata Reddi & Ors. (supra) except to add that to adopt the reasoning of  the Full  Bench of  three Judges  in Cherukuru Muthayya v.  Gadde Gopalakrishnayya  & Ors.  would  lead  to conflict of  jurisdiction and  the implementation of the Act would be thrown into disarray.      In this  connection we  may quote  the observations  of Subba Rao,  Chief Justice, who said as follows in Appanna v. Sriramamurty.           "Where a  special tribunal,  out of  the  ordinary      course is appointed by an Act to determine questions as      to rights  which are  the creation  of that  Act,  then      except so  far as  is otherwise  expressly provided  or      necessarily implied,  that tribunal’s  jurisdiction  to      determine those questions is exclusive. Under the 208      Act old  rights were  abolished  and  new  rights  were      created. A  lawful ryot  is entitled to a patta, when a      question arises  whether a  person is  a lawful ryot or      not, that  question falls  to be decided by the special      Tribunal created by the Act".      In  view   of  the   above  discussion  the  appeal  is dismissed. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 209

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7