Skip to content


In Re: Raja of Vizianagaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 118 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad416; (1953)IMLJ289
ActsMadras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Sections 3
AppellantIn Re: Raja of Vizianagaram
Advocates:P. Ram Reddi and ;V. Venkataramana Reddy, Advs.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredPrasad Row v. Secy. of State
Excerpt:
- rajamannar, c.j.1. the rajah of vizianagaram is the petitioner in this application. the estate of vizianagaram was notified under the madras estates (abolition and conversion imp ryotwari) act, 1948, in september 1949. this application relates to certain vacant house sites in the town of vizianagaram. these house sites certainly form part of the estate of vizianagaram. they are admittedly situated within the ambit of the estate and it is impossible to accept the contention raised in the affidavit that the petitioner's predecessor owned these lands before the permanent settlement. it is not suggested that they were parts of pre-settlement inams. it was contended that the permanent assessment was not arrived at after taking into account uncultivated arable lands and waste lands and these.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The Rajah of Vizianagaram is the petitioner in this application. The estate of Vizianagaram was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion imp Ryotwari) Act, 1948, in September 1949. This application relates to certain vacant house sites in the town of Vizianagaram. These house sites certainly form part of the estate of Vizianagaram. They are admittedly situated within the ambit of the estate and it is impossible to accept the contention raised in the affidavit that the petitioner's predecessor owned these lands before the Permanent Settlement. It is not suggested that they were parts of pre-settlement inams. It was contended that the permanent assessment was not arrived at after taking into account uncultivated arable lands and waste lands and these were given practically free to the Zamindar without any additional assessment and therefore the vacant sites in question which fall under that category must be taken to be outside the scope of the Permanent Settlement.

The contention is based on a fallacy. What passed to the Zamindar under the sanad was not confined to the lands on which the peish-cush was calculated -- see -- 'Prasad Row v. Secy. of State for India 40 Mad 886 PC. The fact that in 1802 no income accrued to the Zamindar from these lands does not really affect the question. Once it is granted that these sites form part of the permanently settled estate, Section 3(b) of the Abolition Act certainly gives power to the Government to take them over unless the Zamindar is entitled to be granted ryotwari pattas under Section 12 and similar provisions of the Act. Obviously, these lands do not fall within such provisions and the petitioner will not be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of them.

2. There is no reason therefore to quash the order of the Board of Revenue which gave effect to correct principles in directing the vesting of the sites in question in the Government.

3. The application is therefore dismissed.


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