Holding

A person who was in continuous possession of the land before the 1959 notification under the 1948 Act automatically becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta, rendering Section 82 of the 1987 Endowments Act inapplicable.

Summary

The appellant, Dokiseela Ramulu, a landless cultivator, claimed that he and his ancestors had possessed a parcel of agricultural land in Sangam Agraharam village long before the 1959 notification under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and therefore became a "ryotwari pattadar" under Section 11 of that Act. The respondent, Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu (a deity represented by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam), asserted a landlord‑tenant relationship and relied on Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to claim that the appellant's rights were terminated. The lower courts had decreed in favour of the appellant and dismissed the estate officer’s suit. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s pre‑notification possession entitled him automatically to a ryotwari patta, that Section 82 of the 1987 Act was inapplicable because there was no subsisting lease, and that the claim was not barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

The appellant’s entitlement to a ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the 1948 Estates (Abolition) Act.
Whether Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 applies to extinguish the appellant’s rights.
Whether the appellant’s claim is barred by limitation.
Whether the decree of the lower courts is binding on the parties.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land lawRyotwari pattaInam estateEstates Abolition ActEndowments ActLease of agricultural landLimitationInjunctionTenant rightsAndhra Pradesh

Judgment

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 459

DOKISEELA RAMULU A
v.
SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY VARU & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 11306 of2016)
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 B

[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Land laws and Agricultural Tenancy:
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - ss. 3 and 11 - Suit by C
appellant claiming to be cultivating tenant of the suit land much
prior to Notification u/s. 3' of the Act and thus, was a 'Ryotwari
Pattadar' of the land - Also sought for injunction so as to restrain
the erstwhile landlord (respondent No. 1 - Diety) from interfering
with his possession - Estate Officer, Devasthanam also filed a suit D
asserting that diety-respondent No. 1 was the absolute owner of the
land and the appellant was cultivating the land as its tenant and on
coming into force of Endowments Act, 1987, the rights of the
appellant would stand automatically terminated by virtue of s. 82
thereof - Suit of the appellant was decreed and that of respondent
No. 1 was dismissed - Held: The Revenue Estate where the property E
in question was situated was duly declared 'Inam Estate' by
Notification u/s 3 - It was proved that the appellant was in continuous
possession of the land well before the notified date - Thus, appellant
automatically became entitled to "Ryotwari Patta" - s. 82 of
Endowments Act is inapplicable in the present case - Andhra F
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 - s. 82.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Consequent upon issuance of a notification under
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition G
and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act 1948 on 17.01.1959, the
agricultural land in question in the revenue Estate of Sangam
Agraharam village, was duly declared as an 'lnam Estate'. The
l'ight of the appellant in the aforesaid 'Inam Estate' is dependent
on the determination of the tenancy claim of the appellant prior
H
459
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 8 S.C.R.

A to 17.01.1959, i.e., the notified date. While decreeing the suit
filed by the appellant, it was duly declared that the appellant was
in possession of the laud in question. The appellant and his
ancestors were also held to be in continuous possession of the
land in question, well before the notified date - 17.01.1959. That
being the position, in terms of Section 11 of the 1948 Act, the
B
appellant automatically became entitled to a "ryotwari patta".
[Para 14)(472-G-H; 473-A-B]
2. Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 is ina11plicable
to the present controversy, because the appellant cannot be
c treated as a lease holder of agricultural land belonging to, or given,
or endowed for purpose of any institution or endowment,
subsisting on the date of commencement of the 1987 Act, namely,
on 21.04.1987. The above position also emerges from the
dismissal of the Suit filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam,
D wherein the assertion made on behalf of respondent No. 1 that
there existed a landlord tenant relationship with the appellant,
Oil the basis of an alleged kadapa (rent-deed) dated 29.11.1970,
was rejected. The aforesaid finding admittedly assumed finality
between the parties. [Para 15]1473-E-F]
E Muddada Chaya1111a v. Karnam Naraya11a, 1979 (3)
SCR 201 : AIR 1979 SC 1320 - distinguished.
3. It is not correct to say that the judgment and decree dated
31.10.1977 passed in the suit filed by the appellant, was not
binding on respondent No. 1 as civil courts jurisdiction was barred.
F [Para 16]1473-II; 474-AJ
State of Tamil Nadu v. RamalinKa SamiK(ll Madam, 1985
(1) Suppl. SCR63 : (1985) 4 SCC J - relied on.
4. It is also not correct to say that the claim raised by the
appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between
G the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land. Only
that, respondent No. I claimed that the appellant was in possession
of the land, as its tenant. The appellant had preferred Execution
Application No. 18/2007 when respondent No. I allegedly tried
to interfere with the possession of the agricultural laud in
question, on 06.07.2005. There was no justification for
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 461
VARU & ORS.

determining limitation, with reference to the date when the decree A
in Original Suit No.32/1974 was passed. The relevant elate for
determining limitation was 06.07 .2005, when the appellant's
possession was allegedly threatened. [Para 17][476-B-C] ·
Case Law Reference
197\) (3) SCR 201 distinguished Para 15 B

1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 63 relied on Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11306
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.2009 of the High Court C
of A. P. at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 258 of2009.
Y. Raja Gopala Rao. K. Sharat Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
K. Shivraj Choudhuri, G. V. R. Choudary, A. Chandra Sckhar, Ad vs.
for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present controversy admittedly relates to I acre and 80-1 /
2 cents of agricultural land. Out of the above land, 33-1 /2 cents is in
Survey No.123/5, and the remaining 1 acre and 47 cents is in Survey E
No.129/2, of the revenue estate of Sangam Agraharam Village in
Vangana Manda!, Srikakulam District, in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
It is the case of the appellant before this Cou11, that he is a poor landless
person, and that, his family has been in occupation of the above land for
many years. In fact, it is the appellant's case, that his forefathers had F
been cultivating the above land, which eventually passed on to him, and
members of his joint family.
3. The Rent Reduction Act was applied to Sangam Agraharam
Village vide G.O.M.S.No.3724 dated 31.03.1950. As indicated above,
the land in question was a part of Sangam Agraharam village. Sangam G
village was declared as an 'Inam Estate', within the meaning of Section
3(2)( d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Eventually the same. was
abolished through the Andhra Pradesh (AndhraArea) Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari). Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1948 Act').
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.

A 4. The State Government notified Sangam Agraharam village, under
Section 3 of the 1948 Act, vide Notification No.28 dated 17.01.1959. It
is not a matter of dispute, that the land which is subject matter of the
instant controversy, was notified and published in Part-I of the State of
Andhra Pradesh Gazette, under the 1948 Act.
B 5. On 25.02.1959, the notified land in Sangam Agraharam village,
was taken over by the State Government. The appellant, and before
him, his forefathers were cultivating tenants in respect of the land in
question, for many years prior to the taking over of the above land/
estate, by the State Government. On and with effect from the notified
date, the landlord and tenant relationship between the appellant and the
c erstwhile landlord-respondent no. I (-Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu)
herein, therefore, stood terminated statutorily. The landlord's right
thereafter, was only limited to compensation. Possession of such lands,
was also transferred to the State Government, except land in possession
of persons entitled to a "ryotwari patta". A cultivating tenant was entitled
D to "ryotwari patta", under Section 11 of the 1948 Act. In order to
demonstrate the position, as expressed hereinabove, Sections 3 and 11
of the said Act, are being extracted hereunder:
"3. Consequences of Notification of estate:-- With effect
on and from the notified date and save as otherwise
E expressly provided in this Act-
( a) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Permanent
Settlement Regulation, I 802, the Estates Land Act, and all
enactments applicable to the estate as such except the
Andlira Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction
F of Rent) Act, 194 7, shal I be deemed to have been repealed
in their application to the estate;
(b) the entire estate (including minor inams (post-settlement
or pre-settlement) included in the assets of the zamindari
estate at the permanent settlement of that estate; all
communal lands and porambokes: other non-ryoti lands;
G
waste lands: pasture lands: Janka lands; forests: mines and
minerals: quarries: rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation
works: fisheries: and ferries), shall stand transferred to the
Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances;
and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Revenue Recovery
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 463
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Act, 1864, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation A
Cess Act, 1865 and all other enactments applicable to
cyotwari areas shall apply to the estate;
( c) all rights and interests created in or over the estate before
the notified date by the Government cease and detennine;
(d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction B
that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate,
and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans
and other documents relating to that estate which the
Government may require for the administration thereof:
Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person c
of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider
that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta -
(i) if such person is a cyot, pending the decision of the
Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to
such patta; D
(ii) if such person is a landholder pending the decision of
the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to
it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;
(e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person
E
whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease
and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to
compensation from the Government as provided in this Act;
(f) the relationship oflandholder and ryot shall as between
them. be extinguished;
F
(g) ryots in the estate and persons holding under them shall,
as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights
and privileges as are recognized or conferred on them by
or under this Act, and any other rights and privileges which
may have accrued to them in the estate before the notified
date against the principal or any other landholder thereof
G
shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable
against the Government or such landholder.
xxx xxx xxx

H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.

A 11. i,_<!IJ!f_~jn wi)ich_1_yot is _f!nli!lcd to ryotwari palta :-
!_:_y_~y_n:QLi!u:m estate shall, with_effect on and from the
fl_o_!_i_fu!s! date,__Qg__entitled to a l)'Olwari patta in res1~ct of-
(a) all 1yoti lands which. immediately before the notified
date ~ere J?roperly included or ought to have been proJ?erly
B included in bis holding and which are not either lanka lands
or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other
persQIJj_!i entitles.!_to m2twari 12att1 under any other provision
gfthi_~Act; and

(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the
c notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in
that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the l st
day of July, 1939;
Provided that no person who has been admitted into
possession of any land by a landholder on or after the first
D day of July, 1945 shall, except where the Government, after
an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct,
be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
Explanation:-- No lessee of any lanka and no person to
whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased
E before the notified date, including anjaradar or a farmer on
rent, shall be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of such
land under this section."
(emphasis supplied)
6. The appellant having folt threatened of being dispossessed from
F the above agricultural land, over which he was a "ryotwari pattadar",
filed Original Suit No.32/1974 before the District Munsif, at Palakonda.
The appellant prayed for a declaration, that the land in question, was a
part of Sangam Agraharam village, to which the Rent Reduction Act
had been applied vide G.O.M.S.No.3724 dated 31.03.1950, and further,
that Sangam Agraharam village was an 'Inam Estate' within the meaning
G
ofSection 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and hence, was subject
to the provisions of the 1948 Act. And that, the 'lnam Estate' stood
abolished after the enactment of the 1948 Act. The appellant also prayed
for an injunction, so as to restrain the crstwhi le landlord - respondent
no. I (- Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu) from interfering with the
1-1 appellant's possession.
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 465
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

7. Simultaneously, Suit No.73/1974 was filed by the Estate Officer, A
Devasthanam, asserting that the deity Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu
- respondent no. I, was the absolute owner of the land in question, situated
in Sangam Agraharam village. It was also the case of the Devasthanam,
that the appellant was inducted into the above land, at an agreed rent of
Rs. I 03-78 per year. It was the case of Devasthanam, that the appellant
B
had executed a kadapa (rent-deed) in favour of the Devasthanam, on
29.11.1970. And that, the appellant had been cultivating the above land
as a tenant under, the Devasthanam. Since the appellant had allegedly
failed to pay rent for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, despite several
demands made by the Devasthanam, the above suit was filed for the
recovery of an amount of Rs.311-34 being rent/damages, for use of the c
land in question, and also, for interest and cost thereon.
8. ln Original Suit No.32/1974, filed by the appellant, the following
issues were framed:
"I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?
D
2. Whether the suit is framed is not maintainable?
3. To what relief?"
7. The following additional issue is framed on 1-8-77:-
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration prayed in the
E
suit?"
9. In Suit No.73/1974, filed by respondent no. I, the following issues
were framed:-
"I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect rents from the
defendant? F
2) Whether the defendant acquired occupancy rights over the lands
for which rent is claimed?
3) To what relief?"
I 0. Both the above suits were clubbed together. Evidence was
G
recorded in Original Suit No.32/ 1974, whereupon, it was held, that the
appellant was a cultivating tenant in respect of the above agricultural
land, long prior to the notified date (-17.01.1959), and that, the appellant
had occupancy rights over the above land, prior to taking over of the
'lnam Estates' by the State Government, under the 1948 Act. And
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8. S.C.R.

A further that, with effect from the notified date - 17.01.1959, the
relationship oflandlord and tenant, between the erstwhile landowner Sri
Sangameswara Swamy Varu - respondent no. I, and the ryot stood
terminated. And that, the appellant was entitled to a "tyotwari patta" for
the suit land. This determination was recorded in Original Suit No.32/
74, consequent upon the appellant being able to establish the above
B
position, through the evidence of an "archaka" and a "trustee" (P. W.2
and P. W.3 respectively), of the temple in question. The appellant was
also able to demonstrate, that the appellant and his predecessors-in-
interest, were cultivating tenants of the suit land, long prior to the notified
date- 17.0 I .1959. It is in the aforesaid view of the matter, that Original
c Su it No.32/197 4 came to be decreed.
11. As against the above, the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, could
not establish the execution of the alleged rent deed (kadapa), dated
29 .11.1970, in favour of the appellant. And as such, the Devasthanam
could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, between Sri·
D Sangameswara Swamy Varu and the appellant, as alleged. It was
therefore, that Suit No. 73/1974 was dismissed. The judgment and decree
in Original Suit Nos.32/1974 and 73/1974 were passed on 31.10.1977.
It is not a matter of dispute between the rival parties, that the aforesaid
determination attained finality between the parties.
12. Whilst the claim of the appellant before this Court, was based
E on a collective reading of Sections 3 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1948 (already extracted above), the claim of the Estate Officer,
Devasthanam (on behalf of Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu) was based
on Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
F Institutions & Endowments Act, 19.87 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1987 Act'). Section 82 aforementioned, is being extracted hereunder:
"82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:-(!) Any lease of
agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the
purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the
G date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding
anything in any other law for the time being in force, held
by a person who is not a landless poor person stand
cancelled.
(2) In respect ofleases of agricultural lands other than those
lands situated in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 467
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

held by landless poor person for not less than six years A
continuously, such person shall have the to purchase such
lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the
prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the
time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in
four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale
B
may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public
auction:
Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are
not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants
provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market
rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.
c
Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section 'landless
poor person' means a person whose total extent of land
held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as
both does not exceed 1.011715 hectares (two and halfacres)
of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of di:y land D
and whose monthly income other than from such lands does
not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand
rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own
residential property exceeding two hundred square yards
in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for E
the purpose of purchase of endowments property.
Explanation II:- For the purpose of this sub-section, small
and marginal farmer means a person who being a lessee is
holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or
acres 0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling F
limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively
they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment
of 2/3'd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if
any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction.
(3) The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect G
of any property or any or interest thereon belonging to or
given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or
religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and
the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as
may be prescribed.
H
i

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R.
/
'

A (4) Every lease or licence ofany immovable property, other
than the Agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed
for the purpose ofany charitable or religious institution or
endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement
of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules
as may be prescribed under sub-section (3).
B
(5) The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XVIII of 1956) and the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950) shall not apply to any lease of
land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of
c any charitable or religious institutions or endowment as
defined in this Act."
(emphasis supplied)
The case of respondent no. I - Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu
is, that any lease of agricultural land belonging to, or given, or endowed
D for the purpose of any institution or endowment, subsisting on the date
of commencement of the instant Act, shall stand cancelled. Based on
Section 82, it was asserted. that all cxi~ting rights in the appellant would
automatically stand terminated on the coming into force of the 1987 Act.
13. In order to support his aforestated contention, learned counsel
E for the respondent institution placed reliance on Muddada Chayanna v.
Karnam Narayana, AIR 1979 SC 1320, on the following:
· "3. !ti2_11ot d!w1ted !!.1111theJands arc situated in Jlhommika
/i
vill:]ge. It is not also disputed that Bhommika village was in
lnmn estate and that \twas taken over by the Government
F !•nder the provisions oft he Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Arca)
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rvotwari) Act. The
wnellant Claims that he is the l_awf~L!"yot of the lands in
dis1m!¢'_BJLd~th~tt\1e_@pond_~ts_ar~_h.i~t~nants. On the
other hand the rcs119_ndents ,laim that they •re the lawful
G
ryots of the holding. The 'J_uestion at issue between the
narties therefor~~~. whether theilpnel Iant or the respondents
are the lawful rvots of the holding. Under Sec. 56( ~)(c) of
the Andhra Prad~sh (Andhra Arca) Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act "where, after an estate is
notified, a dispute arises as to (a} whether any rent due
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 469
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount A
of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of
any holding is, the dispute shall be decided PY the Settlement
Officer". Section 56(2) provides for an appeal to the Estates
Abolition Tribunal against the decision of the Settlement
Officer and further provides that the decision of the Tribunal
B
shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any
Court oflaw. Prima facie. therefore. the question as to who
is the lawful ryot of any holding. if such question arises for
decision after an estate is notified. has to be resolved by
the Settlement Officer and by the Estates Abolition Tribunal
under Secs. 56(l)(c) and 56(2) of the Andhra Pradesh c
Estates Abolition Act. The Andhra Pradesh Estates
Abolition Act is a self contained code in which provision is
also made for the adjudication of various types of disputes
arising after an estate is notified, by specially constituted
Tribunals. On general principles, the special Tribunals
D
constituted by the Act must necessarily be held to have
exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes entrusted by the
statute to them for their adjudication.
xxx xxx xxx
5. A briefresume of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh E
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act relevant for our present purpose is permissible
here. As stated in the preamble the Act was enacted to
provide for the repeal of the Permanent Settlement, the
acquisition of the Rights of land-holders in permanently
settled and certain other estates and the introduction of the F
ryotwari settlement in such estates. Section I(4) provides
for the notification of estates and Sec. 3 enumerates the
consequences of notifying an estate under Sec. I( 4) of the
Act. In particular Sec. 3(b) provides that the entire estate
shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them G
free ofall encumbrances. Section 3(c) provides that all rights
and interests created in/or over the estate by the land-holder
shall cease and determine as against the Government.
Section 3(d) empowers the Government to take possession
of the estate but saves from dispossession any person who
H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.

A the Government considers is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari
patta unti I the question whether he is actually entitled to
such patta is decided by the Settlement Officer in the case
of a ryot or by the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on
appeal in the case of a land-holder. Section 3(t) provides
that the relationship of the landholder and ryot shall, as
B
between them, be extinguished. Section 3(g) provides that
ryots in the estate shall, as against the Government be
entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised
or conferred on them by or under the Act. Section 11
c;_9_11fers on eve1y_ ryQtll1_aJ1_est11te the rigbl to obtai1_u1
c ryotwari patta in rewect ofJY_oti land which was includei!
or ought to have been i!)cluded in his holding on \he notified
elate. Sections 12, 13 and 14 confer on the land-holder the
right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of private land in
a Zamindari, lnam and Under-tenure estate respectively.
Section 15( I) provides for enquiry by the Settlement Otftcer
D
into claims by a land-holder for a ryotwari patta, Under
Secs. 12. 13 and 14. Section 15(2) provides for an appeal
to the Tribunal from the decision of the Settlement Officer
and it declares that the decision of the Tribunal shall be
final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law.
E Section 16 imposes on every person, whether a land-holder
or a rvot who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under
the Act in respect of any land, the liability to pay to the
Government the assessment that may be lawfully imposed
on the Ian!;!. Sections 21 to 23 provide for the survey of
estates, the manner of affecting ryotwari settlement and
F
the determination of the land-revenue. Secs. 55 to 68 occur
under the heading ,;Miscellaneous". Section 55 provides for
the collection of rent which had accrued before the notified
date. Section 56 provides for the decision ofcertain disputes
arising after an estate is notified. It provides for the decision
G ofa dispute as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for
any fas Ii year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in
arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding
is. The dispute is required to be decided by the Settlement
Officer. Against the decision of the Settlement Officer, an
appeal is provided to the Tribunal and the decision of the
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 471
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Tribunal is declared final and not liable to be questioned in A
any Court of law.
6. Now the Act broadly confers on every tenant in an estate
the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands
which were included or ought to have been included in his
holding before the notified date and on the land-holder the B
right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of lands which
belonged to him before the notified date as his private lands.
The Act makes express provision for the determination of
claims by landholders for the grant of ryotwari patta in
respect of the alleged private lands. If there is provision for
the determination of the claims of a landholder for the grant c
of ryotwari patta in respect of his alleged private lands,
surely, in an Act aimed at the abolition of intermediaries
and the introduction of ryotwari settlement, there must be a
provision for the determination of the claims of ryots for
the grant of ryotwari patta. Section 56( I) is clearly such a D
provision. But in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde
Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 974 Andh Pra 85) (FB) it was held
that an enquiry as to who was the lawful ryot was
permissible under Section 56( I)( c) for the limited purpose
of fastening the liability to pay arrear of rent which had
accrued before a notified date and for no other purpose. E
The conclusion of the Full Bench was based entirely on the
supposed context in which the provision occurs. The learned
Judges held that Sec. 56(1)(c) occurred so closely on the
heels ofS. 55 and S. 56( I)(a) and (b), that the applicability
of Sec. 56( 1)( c) must be held to be "intimately and integrally F
connected" with those provisions. We th ink that the
approach of the Full Bench was wrong. Apart from the
fact that Secs. 55 and 56(1 )(a), (b) and (c) occur under the
heading "Miscellaneous", and, therefore, a contextual
interpretation may not be quite appropriate, the Full Bench
overlooked the serious anomaly created by its conclusion. G
The anomaly is that while express provision is found in Sec.
15 of the Act for the adjudication of claims by land-holders
for the grant of ryotwari pattas, there is, ifthe Full Bench is
correct, no provision for the adjudication of claims by ryots
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R.

A for the grant of ryotwari pattas. It would indeed be
anomalous and ludicrous and reduce the Act to an oddity, if
the Act avowedly aimed at reform by the conferment of
ryotwari pattas on ryots and the abolition of intermediaries,
is to be held not to contain any provision for the determination
of the vital question as to who was the lawful ryot of a
B
holding. The object of the Act is to protect ryots and not to
leave them in the wilderness. When the Act provides a
machinery in Section 56(1)(c) to diScover who the lawful
ryot of a holding was, it is not for the Court to denude the
Act of all meaning by confining the provisions to the bounds
c of Secs. 55 and 56(1 )(a) and (b) on the ground of"contextual
interpretation". Interpretation of a statute, contextual or
otherwise must further and not frustrate the object of the
statute. We are, therefore, of the view that Cherukuru
Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya_(supra) was wrongly
decided in so far as it held that ambit of Sect. 56( I)( c) was
D
controlled by Sec. 55 and S. 56(i)(a) and (b). We do not
think it necessary to consider the matter in further detail in
view of the elaborate consideration which has been given
to the case by the later Full Bench of five Judges of the
High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in T. Munnaswami Naidu v.
E R. Venkata Reddi (AIR 1978 Andhra Pra 200) except to
add that to adopt the reasoning of the Full Bench of three
Judges, in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya
would lead to conflict ofjurisdiction and the implementation
of the Act would be thrown into disarray."
(emphasis supplied)
F
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. First
and foremost, it needs to be determined, whether there is an existing
lease of agricultural land between the appellant and respondent no. I -
Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu. It is only if there was a subsisting
G lease when the 1987 Act was promulgated, Section 82 can be invoked.
We are satisfied, that consequent upon issuance of a notification under
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari), Act 1948 on 17.01.1959, the agricultural land
in question in the revenue Estate of Sangam Agraharam village, was
H
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 473
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

duly declared as an 'lnam Estate'. The right of the appellant in the A
aforesaid 'Inam Estate' is obviously dependent on the determination of
the tenancy claim of the appellant prior to 17.01.1959, i.e., the notified
date. Insofar as instant issue is concerned, Original Suit No.3211974
was decreed in favour of the appellant, and it was duly declared that the
appellant was in possession of the land in question. The appellant and B
his ancestors were also held to be in continuous possession of the land in
question, well before the notified date - 17.01.1959. That being the
position, in terms of Section 11 of the 1948 Act, the appellant automatically
became entitled to a "ryotwari patta". We say so because, it is only
when the possession and occupation of the agricultural land is subsequent
to the first day of July, 1945, that the State Government would examine C
the circumstances of each case,. and thereupon, in an appropriate case,
issue a direction, that "ryotwari patta" was to be extended to the tenant
of such agricultural land. However, since Original Suit No.32/1974
clearly declared, that the agricultural land in question was under the
tenancy of the appellant and his ancestors well prior to the notified date
- 17.01.1959, the appellant was automatically entitled to "ryotwari patta", D
in respect of the land in question.
IS. Having concluded as above, we are satisfied, that Section 82
of the 1987 Act, is inapplicable to the present controversy, because the
appellant cannot be treated as a lease holder of agricultural land belonging
to, or given, or endowed for purpose of any institution or endowment, E
subsisting on the date of commencement of the 1987 Act, namely, on
21.04.1987. The above position also emerges from the dismissal ofSuit
No.73/1974 filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, wherein the
assertion made on behalf of Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu, that there
existed a landlord tenant relationship with the appellant herein, on the F
basis of an alleged kadapa (rent-deed) dated 29.11.1970, was rejected.
The aforesaid finding admittedly assumed finality between the parties.
For the above reason, the reliance placed on the judgment in the Muddada
Chayanna case (supra), is ofno avail to the respondent institution, because
in the above judgment the undisputed position noticed in paragraph 3
(extracted above) was, that the appellant was the lawful ryot of the G
lands in dispute, and that, the respondents were his tenants. The appellant
herein, is not the tenant of Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu.
16. It is also relevant for us to notice, that in order to escape the
binding liability emerging out ofthe judgment and decree dated 31.10.1977
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.

A (passed in Original Suit Nos. 32 of 1974 and 73 of 1974), wherein the
relationship between the appellant and the Sri Sangameswara Swamy
Varu, was held to be not as of tenant and landlord, learned counsel for
respondent no. I, vehemently contended, that the civil courts had no
jurisdiction in the matter, and as such, the appellant could not derive any
benefit from the above judgment. It is not necessary for us to deal in
B
any detail, with the provisions relied upon by learned counsel, because
the precise submission advanced on behalf of respondent no. I, was
examined in State ofTamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, ( 1985)
4 SCC I0, wherein this Court held as under:
·· 12. Now turning to the question raised in these appeals for
c our determination (it is true that Section 64-C of the Act
gives finality to the orders passed by the Government or
other authorities in respect of the matters to be determined
by them under the Act and sub-section (2) thereof provides
that no such orders shall be called in question in any court
D of law. Even so, such a provision by itself is not, having
regard to the two propositions quoted above from
Dhulabhai's case ( 1968) 3 SCR 662, decisive on the point
of ouster of the Civil Cou1t's jurisdiction and several
other aspects like the scheme of the Act, adequacy and
sufficiency of remedies provided by it etc., will have to be
E considered to asce1tain the precise intendment of the
Legislature. Further, having regard to the vital difference
indicated above, in between the two sets of provisions
dealing with grant ofryotwari pattas to landholders on the
one hand and ryots on the other different considerations
r may arise while deciding the issue of the ouster of Civil
Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the true nature of
character of the concerned land. Approaching the question
from this angle it will be seen in the first place that Section
64-C itself in terms provides that the finality to the orders
passed by the authorities in respect of the matters to be
G determined by them under the Act is "for the purposes of
this Act" and not generally nor for any other purpose. As
stated earlier the main object and purpose of the Act is to
abolish all the estates of the intermediaries like Zamindars,
lnamdars, Jagirdars or under-tenure holders etc. and to
1-1
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 475
VARU & ORS. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

convert all land-holdings in such estates into ryotwari A
senlements which operation in revenue parlance means
conversion of alienated lands into non-alienated lands, that
is to say, to deprive the intermediaries of their right to collect
all the revenues in respect of such lands and vesting the
same back in the Government. The enactment and its
B
several provisions are thus intended to serve the revenue
purposes of the Government, by way of securing to the
Government its sovereign right to collect all the revenues
from all the lands and to facilitate the recovery thereof by
the Government and in that process, if necessary, to deal
with claims of occupants oflands, nature of the lands, etc. c
only incidentally in a summary manner and that too for
identifying and registering persons in the revenue records
from whom such recovery of revenue is to be made. The
object of granting a ryotwari patta is also to enable holder
thereof to cultivate the land specified therein directly under
D
the Government on payment to it of such assessment or
cess that may be lawfully imposed on the land. Section 16 is
very clear in this behalf which imposes the liability to pay
such ryotwari or other assessment imposed upon the land
to the Government by the patta-holder. The expression ;'for
the purposes of this Act" has been designedly used in the E
section which cannot be ignored but must be given cogent
meaning and on a plain reading of the section which uses
such expression it is clear that any order passed by the
Settlement Officer either granting or refusing to grant a
1yotwari patta to a ryot under Section 11 of the Act must
be regarded as having been passed to achieve the purposes F
of the Act, namely, revenue purposes, that is to say for
fastening the liability on him to pay the assessment or other
dues and to facilitate the recove1y of such revenue from
him by the Government; and therefore any decision impliedly
rendered on the aspect of nature or character of the land G
on that occasion will have to be regarded as incidental to
and merely for the purpose of passing the order of granting
or refusing to grant the patta and for no other purpose."
(emphasis supplied)
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 8 S.C.R.

A For reason of the above legal position declared by this Court, it is
not possible to accept, that the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1977,
was not binding on the Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu.
17. It is also not possible for us to accept, that the claim raised by
the appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between
B the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land. Only that,
respondent no. I claimed that the appellant was in possession of the land,
as its tenant. Our instant determination on the issue of limitation emerges
from the fact, that the appellant had preferred Execution Application
No.18/2007 when respondent no. I allegedly tried to interfere with the
possession of the agricultural land in question,..on 06.07.2005. There
C was no justification for determining limitation, with reference to the date
when the decree in Original Suit No.32/1974 was passed. The relevant
date for determining limitation was 06.07.2005, when the appellant's
possession was allegedly threatened. Viewed as above, the claim raised
by the appellant, was certainly not barred by limitation.
D 18. Having concluded as above, we are of the view, that the instant
appeal deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed, and
the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
E