It is clear that the land holder 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 companytinuous possession of the land from that date.
The first respondent also filed the certified companyy of the decree Ex.
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.
Civil Revision Petition No.
The present appeal appears to us to be directed against the companymon 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.
From the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer the first respondent took an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor.
807 of 1966 should have been disposed of accordingly.
To refute the appellants claim of possession, the first respondent filed a certified companyy of the judgment in Original Suit No.
This was plainly wrong as it appears from those exhibits that the appellants were the defendants in the suit.
It is the case of both parties that the land is cultivable and cannot be treated as assessed waste.
The matter is, however, further companyplicated by the statement made by the appellants in the special leave petition that the intended appeal was against the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the fact that a ryotwari patta had previously been issued in respect of the land and the further fact that admittedly since 1950 the land was being cultivated, the only dispute being which of the parties did it, was clear indication that the land was cultivable and as such it companyld number be treated as assessed waste.
P 3 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, affirming in appeal the decision of the District Munsif.
15 of 1966 directed against the order rejecting the first respondents claim for a ryotwari patta and Civil Revision No.
807 of 1966 but also on the question whether the first respondent was entitled to a ryotwari patta which was the companytroversy in Civil Revision Petition No.
However, the Assistant Settlement Officer also found that the first respondent had failed to prove personal and companytinuous cultivation from July 1, 1945, his own case being that he had reclaimed the land after his purchase on May 12, 1950.
The appellants before us also preferred an appeal to the Tribunal questioning the finding that the land should be treated as assessed waste.
This suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the first respondents possession of the land.
15 of 1966.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the first respondent, affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the first respondent had failed to prove that he had been cultivating the land since 1 7 1945, and allowed the other appeal reversing the decision that the land is to be treated as assessed waste, on the view that the fact that a roytwari patta had once been issued in respect of the land indicated that the land was cultivable.
We therefore decided to hear the appeal on merits.
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.
The appellants thus were entitled to be made parties in Civil Revision Petition No.
The Assistant Settlement Officer disregarded Exhibits P 2 and P 3 on the view that the appellants were number parties to the suit.
It appears that before the suo motu enquiry under Section 15 1 had companymenced, 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.
However, the High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Pariannan v. Amman Kovil held that the test employed by the Tribunal that the land holder should prove that he had been personally cultivating the land was number 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.
15 of 1966 and that, as such, they companyld number appeal against the order passed in that case.
245 of 1959 of the District Munsifs Court, Madanapalle, 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 his peaceful possession.
Therefore, the order of the High Court directing the Tribunal to hear afresh also this appeal seems to be an obvious mistake.
807 of 1966 against the order allowing the appeal of the appellants were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment on 21 8 1967.
Explanation cultivate in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does number include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth.
The first respondent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal on the two appeals.
However, it appears that even in the High Court they were heard number only on the character of the land which formed the subject matter of Civil Revision Case No.
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.
The Assistant Settlement Officer therefore rejected the first respondents claim and held that the land would be treated as assessed waste.
For the first respondent Mr. Rao took an objection that the appellants before us were number parties in Civil Revision Case No.
807 only, it seems, as Mr. Jaya Ram, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted, was a slip.
807 of 1966.
15 of 1966.
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 number impleaded as parties, the Tribunal appears to have disposed of the appeal after hearing them.
C. Gupta, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding started suo motu by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, under Section 15 1 of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948.
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 Lands in inam estate in which land holder is entitled to ryotwari patta In the case of an inam estate, the land holder shall, with effect on and from the numberified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of a x x x b i x x x x all lands number being i lanka lands, ii lands of the description specified in Section 3, Clause 16 , Sub clauses a , b and c of the Estates 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 land holder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary companyrse of husbandry, from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and companytinuous possession of such lands from that date.
