Maganti Subramanyan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh
The Judgment of the Court Wjls delivered by
Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave is from a common
judgment and order of the lligh Court of Madras disposing of
three Revision Applications arising out of O.P. No. 95 of 1948
filed under s. 4(3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Estates Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alie
nation) Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act').
The central question in this appeal is, whether certain trans
fers of lands alleged to be forest lands made by the 6tb respon
dent herein became void and inoperative under s. 4 of tbe Act.
The said respondent who was a big landholder granted a patta
to his wife, 7th respondent, for Ac. 100-00 of 1and on Nov
ember 9, 1944. Another patta was similarly granted to tbe
appellant in respect of Ac. 90-00 of land on November 25, 1944
On the same day, respondent No. 6 granted a third patta fol" Ac.
}I
MAGANTI v. A. P. STATE (Mitter, J.) 33 l
200-00 of land to respondents 2 to 5. The Act came into force
on October 25, 1947. On October 15, 1948 Original Petition
No. 95 of 1948 was filed in the District Court of Eluru by two
ryots for a declaration that the alienations were void and did not
confer any rights on the alienees. Thereafter the said petition
was split into two parts, O.P. 95/1943 being directed against
respondents 1 to 6 while O.P. No. 95(ai of 1948 was directed
against the 7th respondent. The petitions were disposed of by
an order of the District Judge dated July 18, 1950 holding that
lands covered by the pattas were forest lands and all the aliena
tions were void and inoperative. A civil Revision Petition was
filed in the High Court of Madras by respQndents 1 to 5 against
the order of the District Judge. This was numbered as C.R.P.
No. 22 of 1951. Respondent No. 7 filed a Miscellaneous Peti
tion No. 9534 of 1950 in the High Court of Madras. By order
dated 6th August 1952 both the petitions were dismissed by a
single Judge of the Madras High Court. This cirder was how
ever set aside in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondents 1 to
5 (No. 261 of 1952) wherein it was held that the petitioners as
ryots had no right to maintain the petition but reasonable oppor
tunity should be given to the State to get transposed as the peti
tioner. The State Government therealter got itself transposed as
the petitioner. The District O:mrt however held !hat he peti\ion
was nol m>intainable by iceason of the repeal of the Act by reason
of the passing of a subsequent Act, XXVI of 1948 styled the
Madras Esiate~ (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1948, hereinafter referred to as th~ Act of 1948. Against this
the State Govermnent filed a Revision Petition in the Higll Court
of Andhta Pradesh numbering 1555 of 1955. The High Court
held that the dismissal of the petition on the ground of repeal of
the Act was improper and that the petition should be disposed of
on the merits and remitted the matter to the District Judge. By
a judgment <fated November 30, 1960 the District Judge allowed
the petition negativing the contentions· of the rcspollilent but hold
ing that the lands were forest lands and transfers thereof were void.
The appdlant and others filed Civil Revision Petitions in the High
Court of Andhr11 Pradesh which were disposed of and dismissed
by a common judgment dated August 24, 1965. Hence this
appeal.
The points urged before us by learned counsel for the appel
lant were: (I) The Act applied only to lands which were admit
tedly forest lands and the operation thereof could not be extended
to lands in respect of which there was a dispute as to the nature
thereof. It was argued that any such dispute could only be decid
ed by the Settlement Officrr and not by the District Judge. (2)
The Act was a temporary Act and· all proceedings thereunder
~ame to an end with the repeal of the Act; and (3) A notification
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970) 1 S.C.R
by the State Government describing the land as forest land was
as essential pre-requisite to the application of the Act.
The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the alienation of com
munal, forest and private lands in estates in the Province of Mad
ras and the preamble to the Act shows that it was enacted to
prevent indiscriminate alienation of commurial, foresf and private
lands in estates in the Province ol Madras pending the enactment
of legislation for acquiring the interests of landholders in such
estates and introduci;ig ryotwari settlement therein. No fixed
duration of the Act was sp. ified and it is impossible to hold that
merely because of the above preamble the Act became a tempo
rary Act. The definition of 'forest land' is given In s. 2(b) of the
Act reading :
"forest land" includes any waste lands containing
trees and shrubs, pasture land and any other class of
land declared by the State Government to be forest land
by notification in the l·oc·t St. George Gazette;
Sub-s. (I) of s. 3 prohibited landholders from selling, mortgaging,
converting into ryoti land, leasing or otherwise assigning or alie
nating any communal or forest land in an estate without the pre
vious sanction of the District Collector, on or after the date on
which the Ordinance which preceded the Act cam·e into force,
namely, the 27th J unc, 194 7. Section 4( I) provided that :
"Any transaction of the nature prohibited by section
3 which took place, in the case of any communal or
forest land, on or after the 31st day of October 1939
. . . . . . shall be void and inoperative and shall
not confer or take away, or be deemed to have confer
red or taken away, any right whatever on or from any
party to the transaction :
This sub-section had a proviso with several clauses. Our atten
tion was drawn to clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of the proviso but in
our opinion none of these provisos was applicable to the facts
of the case so as to exclude the operation of sub-s. (I) of s. 4.
Under sub-s. (3) of s. 4.
"If any dispute ariSes as to the validity of the claim
of any person to any land under clauses (i) to (v) of
the proviso to sub-section (I), it shall be open to such
person or to any other person interested in the tra11sac
tion or to the State Goverr:ment, to apply to the Dis
trict Jud~e of the district in which the land is s:tuated,
for a dcc1Sion as to the validity of scch claim."
'
"' D
MAGANT! v. A. P. STATE (Mitter, ].) 333
Under sub-s. (4) the District Judge to whom sush a~pliicati?D is
made was to decide whether the claim to the land was valid or
not after giving notice to all persons concerned· and where the
application was not made by the State Government, to the Gov
ernment itself, and his decision was to be final. Madras Act
XXVI of 1948 was passed on April 19, 1949 being an Act to
provide for the repeal of the Permanent Settlement, the acquisi
tion of the rights of landholders in permanently settled and cer
tain other estates in the Province of Madras, and the introduc
tion of ryotwari sett!ement in such estates. Apparently because
of tl;te preamble to the Act it was contended that with the enact
ment of the repeal of the Permanent Settlement by the Act of
1948 which also provided for the acquisition of the rights of
landh9lders in permanently settled estates, the Act stood repealed.
We fail to see how because of the preamble to the Act it can be
said that it stood repealed by the enactment of the later Act un
less there were express words to that effect or unless There was a
necessary implication. It does not stand to reason to hold· that
the alienation of large blocks of land which were rendered void
under the Act became good by reason of the passing of the later
Act. Our attention was drawn to s. 63 of the later Act which
provided that :
"If any question arises whether any land in an estate
is a forest or is situated in a forest, or as to the limits
of a forest, it shall be determined by the Settlement Offi
cer, subject · to an appeal to the Director within such
time as may be prescribed and also to revision by the
Board of Revenue."
In terms the section was only prospective and it did not seek to
impeach any transaction \'l'hich was effected before the Act and
was not applicable to transactions anterior to the Act. In our
opinion s. 56( 1) of the later Act to which our attention was drawn
by the learned counsel does not fall for consideration in this
case and the disputes covered by that se~tion do noi embrace the
question before us.
Madras General Clauses Act, I of 1891 deals with the effect
of repeal; of 'tatutes. Section 8 sub->. ( f J thereof provides that :
"Where any Act, to which this Chapter applies, re
peals any other enactment, then the repeal shall not-
( a) to (e) .
(f). affect any investigation, legal proceeding or re
i:1e~}'. m respect of any suchright, privilege, obligation,
hab1hty, fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as afore
>aid: m1d nny such investigatio~ legal praceeding or
334 S\;PREME COURT REPORTS [1970] I S.C.R.
remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and A
any such fine, penalty. forefeiture or punishment may
be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not been pass-
ed."
This shows that even if there was a repeal any investigation
started before the repeal would have to be continued and legal B
proceedings under the Act could be prosecuted as if the repealing
Act had not been passed.
There is also no force in the contention that unless there was a
notification under s. 2(b) of the Act declaring a particular land
to be forest land, the applicability of the Act would be excluded.
The definition of 'forest land' in that section is an inclusive one C
and shows that 'forest land' would include not only waste land
con:ainin;! 1'ees, shrubs and pasture land·· hut .1lso any 0ther cla>.;
of lands declared by Government to be forest land. This does
not mean that before a piece of land could be said to be forest
land there woJld have to be a notification by the Government
under the Act. D
Lastly, counsel contended that sub-s. (I) of s. 20. of the later
Act as originally enacted applies to forest lands and therefore the
later Act became applicable thereto. The original section was
however substituted for another by s. 9 of the Madras Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) (Amendment) Act,
1956 which was to be deemed to have come into force on April E
19, 1949 being the date on which the Act of 1948 originally
came into force. The section as it now stands did not confer
any jurisdiction on the Settlement Officer to determine any ques-
tion l!S to whether any land was forest !arid within the meaeing
of the Act and consequently the adjudication by the District Judge
under sub-s. ( 4) of s. 4 was quite competent. Accordingly we F
dismiss the appeal, but do not think it necessary to make any
order for costs relating thereto.
R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
II