1991 (4) TMI 447 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tank and appurtenant land stood vested in the Gram Panchayat.
2. Rights of the descendants in the tank and appurtenant land.
3. The effect of the grant of Ryotwari patta under the Inams Act.
4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the context of the Inams Act.

Summary:

1. Vesting of the Tank and Appurtenant Land in Gram Panchayat:
The Court examined Sections 64 and 95 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Section 64 pertains to the vesting of common property or income in the Gram Panchayat for the benefit of villagers. Section 95 deals with the vesting of public water works, including tanks, in the Gram Panchayat. The Court concluded that the tank and appurtenant land vested in the Gram Panchayat for control, management, and supervision, but this did not confer absolute or full title to the Gram Panchayat.

2. Rights of the Descendants:
The descendants claimed rights based on adverse possession and the grant of Ryotwari patta. The Court found that the tank was a public tank, not a private one, and the descendants did not acquire title by adverse possession. The original grant was made for the preservation and maintenance of the tank, and the descendants' use of the property did not confer ownership rights.

3. Effect of the Grant of Ryotwari Patta:
The grant of Ryotwari patta under Section 3 of the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, was examined. The Court held that the Ryotwari patta was granted for the benefit of the tank, not for personal ownership. The patta was meant for the maintenance of the tank, which is a public institution. Therefore, the descendants did not acquire personal title to the property through the patta.

4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
The Court analyzed the jurisdictional bar u/s 14 of the Inams Act, which excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to set aside or modify decisions made by the Tahsildar, Revenue Court, or Collector under the Act, except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. The Court held that the Inams Act is a self-contained code with exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Revenue Tribunals. Consequently, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was excluded, and the suit filed by the descendants was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of both suits. The tank and appurtenant land vested in the Gram Panchayat for control and supervision, and the descendants did not acquire personal ownership rights through adverse possession or the grant of Ryotwari patta. The Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred by the Inams Act, making the descendants' suit not maintainable. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.