Skip to content


Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Sanivarappet and ors. Vs. Raja Bommadevara Satyanarayana Vara Prasada Rao Naidu Bahadur, Zamindar of South Valluru - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.444
AppellantRaja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Sanivarappet and ors.
RespondentRaja Bommadevara Satyanarayana Vara Prasada Rao Naidu Bahadur, Zamindar of South Valluru
Excerpt:
madras mutates land act (i of 1908), sections 6(6), expo., 8(1), scope of - government land in occupation of zemindar in exchange for zemindari land acquired under land acquisition acl-~whether held as ryot or as landholder. - .....were substituted as a part of his zemindari for the zenvin lands which are acquired under the land acquisition act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the zemindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a government ryot, and owner of the kudivaram right. he had, therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation of sub-section 6 of section 6 of the madras estates land act and, therefore, he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land, as landsholder, that is, by the lands becoming part of his estate.2. it is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of section 8 (1), which provides that in such a case the owner shall hold the lands as a.....
Judgment:

1. Assuming without deciding that the effect of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Government was that the suit lands were substituted as a part of his zemindari for the zenvin lands which are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the zemindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a Government ryot, and owner of the kudivaram right. He had, therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation of Sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore, he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land, as landsholder, that is, by the lands becoming part of his estate.

2. It is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of Section 8 (1), which provides that in such a case the owner shall hold the lands as a landowner and not as a ryot. The language of Section 8 (1) is no doubt wide enough to cover such a case, but the rest of the section rather indicates that in framing it the Legislature was thinking of the acquisition of occupancy rights by landholders and not of the acquisition of landholders' rights by ryts, But, however this may be, the general provisions of Section 8 (1) must, we think, yield to the special provisions of the explanation as to this particular, on the principle generalia sprcialibus non derogant. For this reason, we think that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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