http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MAGANTI SUBRAMANYAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1969

BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  403            1970 SCR  (1) 329  1969 SCC  (2)  96

ACT: Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra Area) Estates Communal  Forest  and Private  Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act  1947-Whether impliedly repealed by Act 26 of 1948 in view of provision in preamble-section  4  declaring alienation  of  Communal  and Forest  Lands  after 1939 to be viod-Definition  of  ’forest lands’ in s. 2(b)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The sixth respondent granted various Pattas of his lands  to his  wife,  to the appellant and others in  November,  1944. After  the coming into force of the Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra Area)   Estates   Communal,   Forest   and   Private   Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1947, section 4(1) of which declared  alienation  of  Communal  or  Forest  Lands  after October,  1939,  to  be void, a petition was  filed  in  the District  Court  by  two ryots for a  declaration  that  the alienations in the present case were void and did not confer any rights on the alienees.  The District Judge allowed  the petition  holding  that the lands in  question  were  forest lands  and  the alienations were void.   Revision  petitions filed before a Single Judge of the High Court were dismissed but  in  a  Letters  Patent Appeal  it  was  held  that  the petitioners as ryots had no right to maintain the  petition, and a reasonable opportunity had to be given to the State to get   itself  transposed  as  the  petitioner.   The   State Government  was  then  transposed  as  the  petitioner   but thereafter the District Judge held that the petition was not maintainable by reason of the repeal of the Act of 1947 upon the  passing of a subsequent Act namely the  Madras  Estates (Abolition   and  Conversion  into  Ryotwari)   Act,   1948. However, a revision petition against this order was  allowed by the High Court which remitted the matter to the  District Judge.  By a judgement in November, 1960 the District  Judge allowed the were forest lands and there transfers were void. Further  revision  petitions  filed by   the  appellant  and others were  dismissed by the High Court. In  appeal  to  this Court it was contended  inter  alia  on behalf  of  the  appellant that (1) the Act of  1947  was  a temporary Act and all proceedings thereunder came to an  end with the implied repeal of the Act by Act XXVI of 1948;  (2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

a  notification by the State Government describing the  land as  forest  land  was  an  essential  pre-requisite  to  the application  of  the Act; and (3) the Act  applied  only  to lands  which were admittedly 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  decided  by   the Settlement Officer and not by the District Judge. HELD:     Dismissing the appeal, (1)  The  purpose  of the Act of 1947 was  to  prohibit  the alienation of communal, forest and private lands in  estates in the Province of Madras and the preamble to the Act  shows that it was enacted to prevent indiscriminate alienation  of such   lands  pending  the  enactment  of  legislation   for acquiring  the interest of landholders in such  estates  and introducing ryotwari settlement therein.  No fixed  duration of the Act was specified 330 and  it  was impossible to hold that merely because  of  the contents of the preamble, the Act became a temporary Act  or that it stood repealed by the enactment of the later Act  of 1948  unless  there  were express words to  that  effect  or unless there was a necessary implication.  It is not reason- able  to  hold that the alienation of large blocks  of  land which  were rendered void under the Act of 1947 became  good by reason of the passing of the later Act. [332 B] (2)  The definition of "forest lands" in section 2(b) of the Act is an inclusive one and -shows that ’forest land’  would include  not  only waste land containing trees,  shrubs  and pasture lands but also any other class 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 would  have to be a notification by the Government and  that otherwise the application of the Act would be excluded. [334 C] (3)  Section 20(1) of the Act of 1948 as originally  enacted was  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  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  question as to whether any land  was  forest within   the  meaning  of  the  Act  and  consequently   the adjudication by the District Judge under sub. s. (4) of

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 614 of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated March  24,  1965 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in  Civil Revision Petition No. 966 of 1962. A.   V. V. Nair, for the appellant. P.   Ram Reddy and B. Parthasarathy, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter,  J.  This appeal by special leave is from  a  common judgment and order of the-High 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 Alienation) Act, 1947  (hereinafter  called the ’Act). The  central  question in this appeal  is,  whether  certain transfers  of lands alleged to be forest lands made  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

6th respondent herein became void and inoperative under S. 4 of  the Act.  The said respondent -who was a big  landholder granted a patta to his wife, 7th respondent, for Ac.  100-00 of  ’land on November 9, 1944.  Another patta was  similarly granted to the appellant in respect of Ac. 90-00 of land  on November 25, 1944 On the same day, respondent No. 6  granted a third patta for Ac. 331 200-00  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 we’re  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 (a) 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 alienations were  void and inoperative.  A civil Revision Petition was filed in the High Court of Madras by respondents 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  Petition 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 order 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 opportunity should be given to  the State  to  get  transposed as  the  petitioner.   The  State Government   thereafter   got  itself  transposed   as   the petitioner.   The  District  Court  however  held  that   he petition was not maintainable by reason of the repeal of the Act  by reason of the passing of a subsequent Act,  XXVI  of 1948  styled  the Madras Estates (Abolition  and  Conversion into  Ryotwari ) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to  as  the Act  of  1948.  Against this the State  Government  filed  a Revision  Petition  in  the High  Court  of  Andhra  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 dated November 30, 1960 the  District  Judge allowed  the  petition  negativing the  contentions  of  the respondent but holding that the lands were forest lands  and transfers thereof were void.  The appellant and others filed Civil Revision Petitions in the High Court of Andhra 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:  (1) The Act applied only to  lands  which  were admittedly 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 decided by the Settlement Officer  and not  by the District Judge. (2) The Act was a temporary  Act and  all  proceedings  thereunder came to an  end  with  the repeal of the Act; and (3) A notification 332 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 communal,  forest  and  private  lands  in  estates  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Province of Madras and the preamble to the Act shows that it was   enacted  to  prevent  indiscriminate   alienation   of communal,  forest  and  private  lands  in  estates  in  the Province of Madras pending the enactment of legislation  for acquiring  the interests of landholders in such estates  and introducing ryotwari settlement therein.  No fixed  duration of  the Act was specified 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 Fort St. George Gazette; Sub-s.  (1)  of s. 3 prohibited  landholders  from  selling, mortgaging, converting into ryoti land, leasing or otherwise assigning  or alienating any communal or forest land  in  an estate  without  the  previous  sanction  of  the   District Collector, on or after the date on which the Ordinance which preceded  the  Act came into force, namely, the  27th  June, 1947.  Section 4(1) 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 conferred or  taken               away, any right whatever on or from any  party               to the transaction : This  sub-section had a proviso with several  clauses.   Our attention  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. (1) 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 (1), it shall be open to -such  person               or  to  any  other person  interested  in  the               transaction  or  to the State  Government,  to               apply to the District Judge of the district in               which the land is situated, for a decision  as               to the validity of such claim."                             333 Under sub-s. (4) the District Judge to whom such application 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 Government 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  acquisition of  the  rights  of landholders in permanently settled and certain other estates in the Province of Madras, and the introduction of  ryotwari settlement  in  such  estates.  Apparently  because  of  the preamble to the Act it was contended that with the enactment of the repeal of the Permanent Settlement by the Act of 1948 which  also  provided for the acquisition of the  rights  of landholders  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 unless 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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 Officer,  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 which 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 section do not -embrace the question before us. Madras General Clauses Act, 1 of 1891 deals with the  effect of  repeals  of  statutes.  Section  8  sub-s.  (f)  thereof provides that               "Where any Act, to which this Chapter applies,               repeals  any other enactment, then the  repeal               shall not-               a) to (e)               (f)   affect    any    investigation,    legal               proceeding or remedy in   respect of any  such               right, privilege, obligation,               liability,   fine.  penalty,   forfeiture   or               punishment   as   aforesaid;  and   any   such               investigation legal proceeding or               334               remedy   may  be  instituted,   continued   or               enforced,   and   any  such   fine,   penalty,               forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if               the repealing Act had not been passed. This shows that even if there was a repeal any investigation started  before  the repeal would have to be  continued  and legal  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 and  shows  that  ’forest land’  would include not only waste land  containing  trees, shrubs  and pasture lands but also any other class 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 would have to be a notification by the Government under the Act. Lastly,  counsel contended that sub-s. (1) 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 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  question  as  to whether  any land was forest land within the meaning of  the Act and consequently the adjudication by the District  Judge under  sub-s. (4) of S. 4 was quite competent.   Accordingly we dismiss the appeal, but do not think it necessary to make

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

any order for costs relating thereto. R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed. 335