Skip to content


Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Nellore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 5671 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad60; (1952)IIMLJ194
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Madras Estates Land Act, 1948 - Sections 9
AppellantGosukonda Venkatanarasayya and ors.
RespondentThe State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Nellore
Appellant AdvocateV. Vedantachariar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
madras estates (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) act (xxvi of 1948), section 9--scope of inquiry under--whether inam village is inam estate or not--not whether grant is of whole village or less--separate remedy therefor; section 9 of the madras estates (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) act (xxvi of 1948) provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. proceedings under that section will not be open to an aggrieved party for the determination of the question whether a grant comprises a village or less than a village. his remedy will be by way of a suit. - - .....and therefore it is not an estate still less an under-tenure estate within the meaning of the madras estates land act. if the grant is less than a village then obviously madras act xxvi of 1948 can have no application whatever. section 9 of that act provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. presumably, when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under section 9 would not be strictly open to the aggrieved party. there is no other provision in the act under which a special tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature which arises in this case, viz, whether a particular grant comprises less than a village. in these circumstances, in our opinion, the aggrieved party.....
Judgment:
1. The petitioners' case is that the grant in their favour comprised less than a village and therefore it is not an estate still less an under-tenure estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If the grant is less than a village then obviously Madras Act XXVI of 1948 can have no application whatever. Section 9 of that Act provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Presumably, when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under Section 9 would not be strictly open to the aggrieved party. There is no other provision in the Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature which arises in this case, viz, whether a particular grant comprises less than a village. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit as he would have a good cause of action when proceedings are taken under colour of an Act which does not apply to the facts of the case. We have already held in petitions arising under Madras Act XXX of 1947 that in similar circumstances the aggrieved party will have a right of suit. We accordingly hold that the proper and adequate remedy for the petitioners is by way of a suit. As they have such a remedy it is not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The application is therefore dismissed.

2. The learned Advocate General states that the Government will not take the objection under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code in case a suit is filed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //