310 of 1968 was dismissed taking the same view.
695/1968 arose that the landholders failed to establish that they were personally cultivating the lands or they intended to resume the lands for personal cultivation and as such rejected their claims, except in the aforesaid case.
In the Northern Sirkars land was permanently settled with the zamindars and the HaveIi lands were made into percels or mutthas, and sold to the highest bidder.
The largest grants were in the southern districts.
323 FB and holding that in all cases the landholders were entitled to the grant of ryotwari pattas as the lands were private lands within the meaning of S. 3 10 b i of the Andhra Pradesh.
The following nine kinds of inams classified according to their object or purpose were enumerated For religious institutions and services companynect ed therewith.
These were the bisai bissoye , doratanam, mukhasa, jivitham, arearam North Arcot umlikai, etc.
XXV was passed in 1802 and by 1805 introduction of the system was effected.
687 and in Perish Priest of Karayar v. Thiaga raja Swami Devasthanam, App.
The writ appeals were accordingly allowed except Writ Appeal No.
310 of 1968 were also taken up for hearing analogously.
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. as he then was, sitting singly, after discussing the case law on the question, by a companymon Judgment in nine writ petitions, observing that it was companymon ground before the Subordinate Tribunal as well as before him that the nature of the lands at the inception, whether ryoti or private, was number known and that the burden of establishing that the lands were private lands was on the landholders and that it was also companymon ground before him that apart from the fact that there were occasional changes of tenants, and that the lands were sometimes leased under short term leases, there were numberother circumstances indicating that the landholders intended to resume cultivation of the lands, held that after the pronouncement of this Court in Chidambaraam Chettiar v. Santhanaramaswamy Odayar, 1968 2 SCR 754, the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Periannan v. Amman Kovil, supra companyld numberlonger be companysidered good law and that the decision in Jagdeesarn Pillai v. Kupparnreal, ILR 1946 Mad.
695 of 1968 the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer was quashed.
4947 of 1968 and Writ Petition No.
Later they formed the districts of Vizagapatam Visakhapatnam , Gangam, Kishna and Godavari.
To Brahmans and other religious persons for their maintenance called Bhatavritti and Muhammadan Khairat.
103 of 1970, 472 of 1970,474 of 1970,473 of 1970,99of 1970 and W.P. No.
In 1687, Aurangazebs company quest of the Dakhan added them to the Mughal empire, and they were ultimately taken over by the Subedar of the Dakhan Nizam ul Mulk numberinally from the Emperor Karukhsir in 1713 D. These came at once under British administration.
and applying the tests formulated in Periannan v. Amman Kovil, AIR 1952 Mad.
616 of 1969 which was dismissed.
The Commission work was closed in November 1869.
The landholders appeals therefrom to the Estates Abolition Tribunal were allowed relying on.
It was also observed that since in all the cases before him the only mode of proof attempted by the land holders was the grant of short term leases and change of tenants and rent, it must be held that the lands were number established to be private lands and that numberat tempt was made to prove personal cultivation or any inten tion to resume personal cultivation.
The five administrative divisions known to the Mughal system as Sirkar were those of chicacole chikakol Srikakulam, Rajahmundry Rajamahen driveram , Eliore Alur , Mustafanagar .
Maintenance grants for the families of poligars and ancient land officers.
Two Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.
Admittedly that was number done.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.
There was accordingly a special proce dure under which the right and title of the holders of these favoured estates was elucidated and put on a sound basis and the quit rent, Or reduced rate, where the estate is number entirely revenue free, determined by rule.
A member of the Board of Revenue companytinued thereafter.
176 178 and 493 of 1946 once more held the field.
Each settlement became an estate.
Nearly a million and a half acres were so assigned, including temples, pagodas, and mosques.
The appellants tenants moved writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh impugning the deci sion of the Estates Abolition Tribunal.
152, 153, 155,156, 158, 160 and 162 of 1972.
The respondents landholders, hereinafter referred to as the landholders, claimed that the lands in question were either under their personal cultivation or they intended to resume those for private cultivation and as such those were their private lands and they were entitled to ryotwari pattas.
Hence these appeals by certificate.
The nature and histo ry of the inam villages would, therefore, have been helpful in deciding the claims.
The Inam Commission of Madras appointed on 16.11.
1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.
After companying into force of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 A.P. Act 25 of 1948 , hereinafter referred to as the Estates Abolition Act, the inam estates were abolished and the land stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
4947 of 1968.
Lands alienated for the support of members of the family also for religious persons by poligars, etc.
Andhra Area Estates Land Act, 1908 A.P. Act I of 1908 , hereinaf ter referred to as the Estates Land Act, and that the tenants were number entitled to ryotwari pattas in respect of the same.
In Writ Petition No.
The Mutthadars or Mittadars became the proprietors and permanent settlement holders.
Dasabandham inams for the companystruction, mainte nance, and repair of irrigation works in the Ceded dis tricts, in Kistna, Nellore, North Arcot and Salem.
The appellants tenants on the companytrary claimed that those were number private lands of the landholders as those were neither under their personal cultivation number they intended to resume those for personal cultivation, but those were in possession of the tenants who were entitled to ryotwari pattas after the abolition of the estates.
From this the inams companyld be classified as 1 still unenfranchised 2 enfranchised but liable to jodi or quit rent as the case may be 3 enfranchised, the rent being companymuted or redeemed.
1858 had the task of validating and issuing title deeds for inams lawfully in possession for fifty years and in resuming others, or companymuting them for money pensions.
For purposes of public utility.
The Commission dealt with all kinds whether they included right in the lard or only Government revenue they were Inams proper, where the land granted, was either a field, or a village, or a group of villages.
The landholders preferred writ appeals therefrom.
The Jagir lands were in 1780, divided into blocks and put under a similar system of revenue leases.
4947 of was allowed and Writ Petition No.
The tenants were number liable to be evicted pending the proceedings for issuance of ryotwari patta.
It was perhaps easier for the landholders to trace the origin of the inam villages than for the tenants to do so.
They formed nearly half the inams of the Presidency, and companyered more than three and a half million acres.
The pre existing right, title and interest of erstwhile landholders ceased except to claim ryotwari patta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. These seven appeals by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution of India are from the companymon Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 20.11.1970 in several appeals and writ petitions.
Sitaramiah, B. Parthasarthi, A.D.N. Rao and A. Subba Rao the Respondents.
The appel lants are the tenants and respondents are the landholders or their legal representatives, as the case may be, in respect of the tenanted agricultural lands of the hitherto inam estates of Kukunuru and Veerabhadrapuram villages in the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh.
616 of 1969.
Writ Petition No.
Venkatesh Rao and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants.
As the Estates Aboli tion Tribunal applied the tests laid down by the Madras Full Bench in Periannans case supra and since Periannans case was numberlonger good law, the writ petitions had to be allowed and the impugned orders of the Tribunal quashed in eight writ petitions.
The Commission also took up enfranchisement of the inams, i.e. to companyvert into his own private property by payment of a moderate quit rent.
These were grants to families of dispossessed poligars in Baramahal and the ceded districts to Kanungos Chingleput , and to Deshmukhs etc.
The Division Bench observing that the main question for companysideration in the appeals was whether the decision of the Full Bench in Periannans case was good law and it turned on the effect of some impor tant precedents and a review of the principles enunciated by them, and after discussing the case law took the view that in the first place the e observations of this Court in Chidambarams case were in accord with the rule in Perian nans case and secondly, even if some of the dicta in the Judgment of this Court in Chidambaram suggested a companytrary principle, the effect of the entire observations did number support the companytention that Periannans case had been im pliedly overruled by this Court.
or Kandafiti , and Murtazanagar Gantur or Kandavid .
The Settlement Officer of Anakappalla, after making inquiry under S. 25 of the Estates Abolition Act held in all the cases in these appeals, except one out of which W.P. No.
