{"id":33114,"date":"1961-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961"},"modified":"2015-04-20T02:55:36","modified_gmt":"2015-04-19T21:25:36","slug":"hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 71, \t\t 1962 SCR (2) 535<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHOTA VENKATA SURYA SIVARAMA SASTRY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR   71\t\t  1962 SCR  (2) 535\n\n\nACT:\nAbolition  of Estates-Enactment providing for  State  taking\nover  estates  by notification-Part of\testate\toutside\t the\noperation of enactment -Legislation extending its operation-\nNotifications  in respect of estate, each  part\t separately-\nLegality  -,Madras  Scheduled Areas Estates  (Abolition\t and\nConversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951 (Regulation 4  of\n1951),\tS. 2-Madras Estates (Abolition and  Conversion\tinto\nRyotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras 26 of 1948), ss. 1(4), 3, 25.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  areas  in\tquestion which were  parts  of\ttwo  estates\nbelonging to the appellants, called Gangole A and Gangole C,\nwere situated in what was known as the Godavari Agency tract\nwhich was governed by the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874.  By\ns.  92 of the Government of India Act, 1935, no Act  of\t the\nProvincial  Legislature was applicable to certain  areas  in\nwhich the Godavari Agency was included, unless the  Governor\nby public\n536\nnotification so directed.  The Madras Estates (Abolition and\nConversion  into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was enacted  in  1948,\nand  on August 15, 1950, the Government of Madras  issued  a\nnotification under s. 1(4) Of the Act by which, among  other\nestates,  Gangole  A and Gangole C in  their  entirety\twere\npurported to be taken over, specifying September 7, 195o, as\nthe date on which the vesting was to take place.  But as  no\naction\tas contemplated by s. 92 of the Government of  India\nAct,  1935, had been taken to render the Madras Act of\t1948\napplicable  to the Godavari Agency tract, only parts of\t the\nGangole estates were within the operation of that Act, while\nthere  were portions of the estates which were\toutside\t its\npurview\t and  operation.   When\t this  legal  situation\t was\nnoticed\t another  notification was issued  on  September  5,\n1950, by which the areas in question were excluded from\t the\nscope  of  the\tnotification  dated  August  15,  1950.\t  In\nexercise of the power under para 5(2) Of the Fifth  Schedule\nto the Constitution, Madras Regulation IV of 1951 was passed\non  September 8, 1951 by which, inter alia, the Act Of\t1948\nwas  made applicable to the areas in which the\ttwo  Gangole\nestates\t were situate with retrospective effect\t from  April\n19,  1949.   On January 14, 1953, the Government  of  Madras\nissued a notification vesting those portions of the  Gangole\nestates\t to  which  the\t Act  Of  1948\twas  extended.\t The\nappellants  challenged the legality of the  notification  on\nthe ground that the various provisions of the Madras Estates\n(Abolition  and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948,  showed\nthat  the Act contemplated the taking over of estates  as  a\nunit and not in parts, while what the Government had done in\nthe present case was to deal with the two estates of Gangole\nA  and\tGangole\t C as if each one of them  were\t really\t two\nestates, one that which lay in the Godavari Agency tract and\nthe other outside that area, and had issued notifications in\nrespect of these units separately.\nHeld, that the first notification dated August 15, 1950,  as\nmodified  by  that dated September 5, 1950,  was  valid\t and\neffective in law to vest the portion of the estate to  which\nit related in the State Government.\nHeld further, that the notification dated January 14,  1953,\nwas  equally valid.  The action taken by the  Government  in\nissuing\t the  said notification was in conformity  with\t the\nscheme\tof the Act of 1948 that the entirety of\t the  estate\nshould be taken over.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 646 and 647
\nof 1960.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated
\nJanuary\t 28, 1958, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in\tWrit
\nAppeals Nos. 149 and 150 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    537<\/span><\/p>\n
A.   V.\t Viswanatha  Sastri and T.  Satyanarayana,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
A.   Ranganatham  Chetty, S. V. P. Venkatappayya Sastri\t and
\nT. M. Sen, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  April 28.  The Judgment of the Court was A  delivered
\nby
\nAYYANGAR, J.-These two appeals are by special leave of\tthis
\nCourt  and arise out of orders of the High Court  of  Andhra
\nPradesh dismissing two writ petitions filed before it by the
\nrespective appellants in the
\ntwo appeals.\n<\/p>\n
On  January  14,  1953, the Government of  Madras  issued  a
\nnotification reading, to quote only the material words,\t “in
\nexercise  of the powers conferred by s. 1(4) of\t the  Madras
\nEstates\t (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,\t1948
\n(Madras\t Act  XXVI of 1948), read with s. 2  of\t the  Madras
\nScheduled  Areas  Estates  (Abolition  and  Conversion\tinto
\nRyotwari) Regulation, 1951:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Governor of Madras hereby  appoints\t the
\n\t      4th of February 1953, as the date on which the
\n\t      provisions  of the said Act  shall  come\tinto
\n\t      force in the Estates in the Scheduled Areas of
\n\t      the West Godavari District which are specified
\n\t      in the schedule below:-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      and the schedule set out inter alia:
\n\t      “1.   Agency  Area  of  Gangole  ‘A’   Estate,
\n\t      consisting of 2\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    Agency   Area  of\tGangole’C’   Estate,
\n\t      consisting of….\t ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is the legality of this notification that is impugned  by
\nthe  two appellants who are the proprietors respectively  of
\nGangole ‘A’ and Gangole ‘C’ estates.  The two writ petitions
\nby the appellants which were numbered respectively 28 and 29
\nof  1953 were dismissed by the learned Single-Judge  of\t the
\nAndhra High Court and appeals under the Letters Patent filed
\nagainst\t this  common judgment were also  dismissed  by\t the
\nlearned Judges of that Court.  An application for the  grant
\nof a certificate was also dismissed but this
\n538<\/span>
\nCourt  having granted special leave to the appellants,\tthe’
\nmatter is now before us.\n<\/p>\n
The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into  Ryotwari)
\nAct, 1948, to which we shall refer as the Abolition Act, was
\na piece of legislation of the State enacted to effect reform
\nin  land  tenures  and landholding  by\tthe  elimination  of
\nintermediaries.\t  In  line with similar legislation  in\t the
\nrest  of  the country, the  interests  of  intermediaries-of
\nthree  categories-the estates of Zamindars,  of\t undertenure
\nholders\t and  of  Inamdars  were enabled  to  be  vested  in
\nGovernment  on\tthe publication of a  notification  to\tthat
\neffect,\t compensation being provided for such  taking  over.
\nThe entire legal difficulties in the case of the Gangole ‘A’
\nand  IC’ estates which were admittedly Zamindaris arise\t out
\nof the fact that a small portion of each of them is situated
\nin what is known as the Godavari Agency tract.\tThis  Agency
\narea  was  originally  included as  part  of  the  Scheduled
\nDistrict  of  the  Madras  Presidency  under  the  Scheduled
\nDistricts Act XIV of 1874.\n<\/p>\n
When  the  Godavari  Agency was governed  by  the  Scheduled
\nDistricts  Act,\t 1874, the Madras  Legislature\tenacted\t the
\nMadras Estates Land Act (Act 1 of 1908), which was in  force
\nfrom July 1, 1908.  This enactment regulated the rights\t of,
\ninter  alia,  the proprietors of zamindari estates  and\t the
\nryots  and tenants who cultivated the lands included in\t the
\nestates.   Though,  some  argument was raised  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tdisputing the operation of the Estates Land  Act  to
\nthe Godavari Agency tracts, it has not been repeated  before
\nus.  That Act on its terms applied to the entire  Presidency
\nof Madras and in view of a catena of decisions of the Madras
\nHigh Court starting from the judgment of Muthuswami Iyer, J.
\nin Chakrapani v. Varahalamma (1), on the construction of  s.
\n4 of the Scheduled Districts Act XIV of 1874, the contention
\nwas  hardly  tenable and was therefore\tproperly  abandoned.
\nThe  position therefore was that the entirety of  the  lands
\nand  villages forming Gangole ‘A’ and IC’ were\tgoverned  by
\nthe Madras Estates Land Act, 1908,
\n(1)  (1894) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 227.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    539<\/span><\/p>\n
and were “estates” within the meaning of that enactment.  In
\nthis situation the Government of India Act, 1935, came\tinto
\nforce  on April 1, 1937.  Under its provisions the  Godavari
\nAgency\t was  included\tin  the\t territory   classified\t  as
\n“partially excluded areas” under s. 91 of the Act.  The laws
\napplicable  to\tthe  “partially excluded  areas”  and  their
\nadministration was governed by s. 92 which enacted:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “92(1)  The executive authority of a  Province
\n\t      extends  to  excluded and\t partially  excluded
\n\t      areas  therein, but, notwithstanding  anything
\n\t      in this Act, no Act of the Federal Legislature
\n\t      or of the Provincial Legislature, shall  apply
\n\t      to  an excluded area or a\t partially  excluded
\n\t      area,   unless   the   Governor\tby    public
\n\t      notification  so directs; and the Governor  in
\n\t      giving such direction with respect to any\t Act
\n\t      may   direct  that  the  Act  shall   in\t its
\n\t      application  to the area, or to any  specified
\n\t      part  thereof,  have effect  subject  to\tsuch
\n\t      exceptions or modifications as he thinks fit.
\n\t      (2)   The\t Governor may make  regulations\t for
\n\t      the peace\t and good government of any area  in
\n\t      a\t Province  which is for the  time  being  an
\n\t      excluded\tarea, or a partially excluded  area,
\n\t      and  any\tregulations so made  may  repeal  or
\n\t      amend any Act of the Federal Legislature or of
\n\t      the  Provincial Legislature, or  any  existing
\n\t      Indian  law,  which  is  for  the\t time  being
\n\t      applicable to the area in question.
\n\t      Regulations made under this sub-section  shall
\n\t      be submitted forthwith to the Governor-General
\n\t      and until assented to by him in his discretion
\n\t      shall  have no effect, and the  provisions  of
\n\t      this  Part  of this Act with  respect  to\t the
\n\t      power  of His Majesty to disallow\t Acts  shall
\n\t      apply  in\t relation to  any  such\t regulations
\n\t      assented\tto by the Governor-General  as\tthey
\n\t      apply  in\t relation to Acts  of  a  Provincial
\n\t      Legislature assented to by him.
\n\t      (3)   The Governor shall, as respects any area
\n\t      in  a Province which is for the time being  an
\n\t      excluded\tarea, exercise his functions in\t his
\n\t      discretion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We shall be pointing out a little later, the interconnection
\nbetween the Estates Land Act, 1908 and
\n540<\/span>
\nthe  Abolition\tAct,  but for the present  narrative  it  is
\nsufficient to state that when the Abolition Act was  enacted
\nin  1948,  it  could  not of its own  force,  apply  to\t the
\n‘partially excluded areas’ and no action as contemplated  by
\ns.  92\tof the Government of India Act, 1935, was  taken  to
\nrender\tthat  Act applicable to that area.  The\t result\t was
\nthat  only  a part of Gangole ‘A’ and ‘C’  were\t within\t the
\noperation of the Abolition Act, while there were portions of
\neach  of  the  estates which were outside  its\tpurview\t and
\noperation.\n<\/p>\n
This  legal situation was however not noticed and under\t the
\nwrong impression that the Abolition Act was in operation  in
\nthe Godavari Agency also, the Government of Madras issued on
\nAugust\t15,  1950,  a  notification under  s.  1(4)  of\t the
\nAbolition Act by which, among other estates, the entirety of
\nGangole estate ‘A’ and Gangole estate ‘C’ were purported  to
\nbe taken over, and specifying September 7, 1950, as the date
\non  which the vesting was to take place.  Before the  latter
\ndate,  however,\t the error was noticed\tand  in\t consequence
\nanother\t notification was issued on the 5th of September  by
\nwhich  the  villages  and hamlets lying\t in  the  “partially
\nexcluded areas” of Gangole estate ‘A’ and Gangole estate IC’
\nwere  excluded\tfrom  the scope of  the\t notification  dated
\nAugust 15,1950.\t Thereafter the question of the extension of
\nthe  Abolition\tAct to the “partially  excluded\t areas”\t was
\ntaken on hand.\tBy that date, it would be seen, the  Consti-
\ntution\thad come into force and the law applicable to  areas
\nlike  the Godavari Agency was provided for by Art. 244\tread
\nwith the Sch.  V to the Constitution.  Art. 244(1) enacted:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  provisions of the Fifth  Schedule  shall
\n\t      apply to the administration and control of the
\n\t      Scheduled\t Areas and Scheduled Tribes  in\t any
\n\t      State other than the State of Assam.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As  regards the law applicable to the Scheduled\t Areas,\t the
\nrelevant provision is that contained in paragraph 5 of\tthat
\nSchedule of which the material portions are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5. Law applicable to Scheduled Areas-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Notwithstanding    anything\t  in\tthis
\n\t      Constitution,  the   Governor  may  by  public
\n\t      notification
\n\t\t\t\t   541<\/span>
\n\t      direct  that any particular Act of  Parliament
\n\t      or of the Legislature of the State shall\triot
\n\t      apply to a Scheduled Area or any part  thereof
\n\t      in  the  State or shall apply to\ta  Scheduled
\n\t      Area or any part thereof in the State  subject
\n\t      to such exceptions and modifications as he may
\n\t      specify in the notification and any  direction
\n\t      given under this sub-paragraph may be given so
\n\t      as to have retrospective effect.
\n\t      (2)   The\t Governor may make  regulations\t for
\n\t      the peace\t and good government of any area  in
\n\t      a State which   is   for\tthe  time  being   a
\n\t      Scheduled Area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)  In  making  any  such  regulation  as  is
\n\t      referred\tto  in\tsubparagraph  (2)  of\tthis
\n\t      paragraph,  the Governor may repeal  or  amend
\n\t      any Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of
\n\t      the State or any existing law which is for the
\n\t      time   being   applicable\t to  the   area\t  in
\n\t      question.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  exercise of the power under paragraph 5(2) of the  Fifth
\nSchedule,  Madras  Regulation  IV  of  1951  was  passed  on
\nSeptember 8, 1951.  The territorial extent of its  operation
\nextended  to certain areas specified in the Schedule,  which
\nincluded the areas in the Godavari district in which the two
\nGangole estates were situate and by its operative provisions
\nthe  Abolition Act together with the amendments effected  to
\nit,  were made applicable to these areas with  retrospective
\neffect\tfrom April 19, 1949.  The Abolition Act having\tthus
\nbeen  extended to that part of the Gangole ‘A’\tand  Gangole
\n‘C’  estates  which  lay within\t “the  Scheduled  area”\t the
\nGovernment  of\tMadras\tissued\tthe  impugned\tnotification
\nvesting\t those portions of the estate to which the  Act\t was
\nextended by Regulation IV of 1951.  As stated earlier, it is
\nthe  validity  of  this last notification  and\tthe  vesting
\neffected  thereunder  of those portions of Gangole  ‘A’\t and
\nGangole\t ‘C’  which lay within the Scheduled  area  that  is
\nalone challenged in the appeals before us.
\nThe  notification  was impugned on several grounds,  all  of
\nwhich were rejected by the High Court.\tSeveral 69
\n542<\/span>
\nof  them have been put forward before us, though not all  of
\nthem with equal emphasis.  Before however adverting to\tthem
\nit  might  be convenient to set out the\t relevant  statutory
\nprovisions which bear upon the points urged.  The long title
\nof the Abolition Act states:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whereas\tit is expedient to provide  for\t the
\n\t      repeal   of  the\tPermanent  Settlement,\t the
\n\t      acquisition  of the rights of landholders\t not
\n\t      permanently settled and certain other  estates
\n\t      in the Province of Madras
\n\t      “………  It is hereby enacted as follows:”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 1(3) defining the extent of its application runs:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  applies  to\tall estates  as\t defined  in
\n\t      section  3, clause (2), of the Madras  Estates
\n\t      Land  Act,  1908, except inam  villages  which
\n\t      became estates by virtue of the Madras Estates
\n\t      Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 2 which is the definition section provides by sub-s.
\n(1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  All expressions defined in\tthe  Estates
\n\t      Land  Act\t shall\thave  the  same\t  respective
\n\t      meanings\t  as   in   that   Act\t with\t the
\n\t      modifications, if any, made by this Act.”
\n\t      and sub-s. (3) provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “(3)  ‘estate’ means a zamindari or an  under-
\n\t      tenure or an inam estate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      and   sub-s.  (4)\t of  this  section   defines
\n\t      ‘Estates Land Act’ to mean “the Madras Estates
\n\t      Land Act, 1908.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Having  regard  to  these\t provisions  it\t  is
\n\t      necessary to refer to the terms of the Estates
\n\t      Land  Act to which one is directed by s.\t1(2)
\n\t      of  the Abolition Act.  Section 3 (2)  of\t the
\n\t      Estates  Land  Act  defines  “an\testate”\t  as
\n\t      meaning:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “3  (2)(a) any permanently-settled  estate  or
\n\t      temporarily-settled zamindari,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   any portion of such\t permanently-settled
\n\t      estate or temporarily-settled zamindari  which
\n\t      is separately registered in the office of\t the
\n\t      Collector;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)
\n\t\t\t\t   543<\/span>
\nWe shall now proceed to deal with the several points raised,
\nthough\texcept one all the others do not merit\tany  serious
\nconsideration  and have been properly rejected by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The  first  point  urged  was\tthat  the  Polavaram
\nzamindari  the parent estate from which the  Gangole  estate
\nwas,  by  successive  sub-divisions,  separated-was  not  “a
\npermanently  settled estate” because the’ Madras  Permanent-
\nSettlement  Regulation\tXXV of 1802 was\t excluded  from\t its
\napplication to Scheduled districts by the Laws Local  Extent
\nAct,  1874.   In  our opinion, the High\t Court\thas  rightly
\nrejected  this\tcontention,  because  even  if\tthe   Madras
\nPermanent-Settlement  Regulation did not apply, there  could
\nbe   no\t dispute  that\tthe  Polavaram\tzamindari   was\t  “a
\npermanently settled estate”, because its peishcush was fixed
\nand from the kabuliyat which was executed by the  proprietor
\nit  is clear that it conforms to the pattern of\t the  sanads
\nand kabuliyats issued under the Madras\tPermanent-Settlement
\nRegulation.\n<\/p>\n
Though before the High Court it was urged that on the  issue
\nof the notification on August 15, 1950, under s. 1(4) of the
\nAbolition  Act\tthe  power  of\tthe  State  Government\t was
\nexhausted and that they were thereafter incompetent to issue
\nany further notification under the same Act, this contention
\nwhich entirely lacks substance was not seriously urged.
\nIt was next contended that Regulation IV of 1951 was invalid
\nas having outstepped the limits of the legislation permitted
\nby  paragraphs\t5(1) and (2) of the Fifth  Schedule  to\t the
\nConstitution.\tIt was said that if the Governor desired  to
\nenact  a  law  with retrospective effect it must  be  a\t law
\nfashioned  by  himself,\t but  that  if\the  applied  to\t the
\nScheduled  areas  a law already in force in  the  State,  he
\ncould  not  do\tso with retrospective  effect.\t Reduced  to
\nsimple terms, the contention merely amounts to this that the
\nGovernor  should have repeated in this Regulation the  terms
\nof  the Abolition Act but that if he referred merely to\t the
\ntitle  of the Act he could not give retrospective effect  to
\nits provisions over the area to which it was being  applied.
\nIt  is obvious that this contention was correctly  negatived
\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
544<\/span><\/p>\n
We shall now proceed to deal with the only point put forward
\nby Mr. Viswanatha Sastri which, we have said, merits serious
\nconsideration,\tthough\tit  must be said  that\tit  was\t not
\npresented in the same form before the learned Judges of\t the
\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh.  The, argument was as follows:
\nThe  Madras Estates Land Act of 1908, admittedly applied  to
\nthe  entire estate of Gangole-including that portion of\t the
\nestate\twhich  was  in\tthe Scheduled  area  which,  in\t the
\nphraseology employed by the Government of India Act, was  “a
\npartially  excluded  area.”  Gangole  ‘A’,  Gangole   ‘B’and
\nGangole’C’  had\t been  subdivided and  had  been  separately
\nregistered.  Each one of them was therefore a unit-each\t one
\nwas itself “an estate” within s. 3(2)(b) of the Estates Land
\nAct,  1908,  being  “a\tportion\t of  a\t permanently-settled
\nestate\t…………….. which is separately registered  in
\nthe office of the Collector.” The Abolition Act contemplates
\nthe  taking  over of “estates” as a unit and not  in  parts.
\nThe  entire scheme of the Abolition Act is based  upon\tthis
\nprinciple  which  would be upset if it were  held  that\t the
\nGovernment  in\tissuing notifications under s. 1(4)  of\t the
\nAbolition Act could take over portions merely of such units.
\nWhen  a\t notification  is issued under\ts.  1(4)  its  legal
\nconsequences are set out in s. 3 which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “With effect on and from the notified date and
\n\t      save  as otherwise expressly provided in\tthis
\n\t      Act  (the\t saving\t does  not  cover   anything
\n\t      material for the present purpose)-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t  entire   estate   (including\t all
\n\t      communal\tlands; porambokes;  other  non-ryoti
\n\t      lands;  )\t shall\tstand  transferred  to\t the
\n\t      Government  and  vest  in them,  free  of\t all
\n\t      encumbrances…….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  provisions\t of  the  Act  determining  the\t amount\t  of
\ncompensation  are related to the sum payable in\t respect  of
\nthe entirety of the estate, for ss. 24 and 25 enact:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “24.   The compensation payable in respect  of
\n\t      an  estate shall be determined  in  accordance
\n\t      with the following provisions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      545<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “25.  The compensation shall be determined for
\n\t      the estate as a whole, and not separately\t for
\n\t      each of the interests therein.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The mode of computation of the compensation amount for which
\nprovision  is made in ss. 27 to 30 all proceed on the  basis
\nthat  it is the entire estate that is taken over and  not  a
\nportion\t merely of the estate.\tAll these,  taken  together,
\nwould  point  to  the scheme of the  Act  contemplating\t the
\nentire\testate\tbeing taken over.  On that scheme  he  urged
\nthat  it would not be possible to work out the\tcompensation
\npayable for separate portions of an estate, for instance for
\none  village out of the several which might be comprised  in
\nan  estate,  The  claims  by  the  proprietor  against\t the
\nGovernment for compensation, as well as the determination of
\ndisputes  inter\t se between claimants  to  the\tcompensation
\namount,\t he pointed out, all proceed on the basis  that\t the
\nentire estate as a unit was taken over by notification under
\ns. 1(4).\n<\/p>\n
On these premises Mr. Viswanatha Sastri submitted that\twhat
\nthe Government had done in the present case was to deal with
\nthe two estates of Gangole ‘A’ and Gangole ‘C’ each of which
\nwas a unit, as if each one of them were really two  estates-
\none  that  which  lay in the Agency  tract,  and  the  other
\noutside that area-and had issued notifications in respect of
\nthese  units  piece-meat  which\t was  not  contemplated\t and
\ntherefore not permitted under the Abolition Act.  He further
\npointed\t out that if the original notification dated  August
\n15, 1950, stood without the “denotification” effected by the
\nnotification dated September 5, 1950, there might be a valid
\nvesting\t  by  reason  of  the  retrospective  operation\t  of
\nRegulation   IV\t  of  1951.   Similarly\t if   the   impugned
\nnotification of 1953, had. included not merely that  portion
\nof  the\t estate of Gangole ‘A’ and Gangole  ‘C’\t which\twere
\nwithin\tthe  Scheduled\tareas but the entirety\tof  the\t two
\nestates, that notification would not have been open to chal-
\nlenge.\t But  the point urged was that it was  only  by\t the
\ncombined operation of (1) the notification dated August\t 15,
\n1956,  as modified by that dated September 5, 1950, and\t (2)
\nthe notification dated January 14,
\n546<\/span>
\n1953, that the entirety of the two “estates” was taken\tover
\nand  that  this\t rendered the  second  notification  invalid
\nbecause\t it  had taken over only a portion  of\tthe  estate.
\nLearned Counsel, no doubt, conceded that the taking over  of
\nthose  portions\t of Gangole ‘A’ and Gangole ‘C’\t which\twere
\nwithin\tthe  operation\tof  the\t Abolition  Act\t before\t its
\nextension to the Scheduled areas not having been challenged,
\nhe  would  not be entitled to any relief in respect  of\t the
\nportion of the estate covered by the first notification, but
\nhis argument was that  would not preclude him from disputing
\nthe validity of the last notification vesting those portions
\nof the two estates which were within the Scheduled areas  in
\nthe State.\n<\/p>\n
We  shall  now proceed to consider the tenability  of  these
\nsubmissions.   We might premise the discussion by  observing
\nthat  learned  Counsel is right in his submission  that\t the
\nAbolition Act does not contemplate or make provision for the
\ntaking over of particular portions only of estates and\tthat
\nif  the-State  Government  having power\t to  take  over\t the
\nentirety  of  an estate chose, however, to  exclude  certain
\nportions of it from the operation of a vesting\tnotification
\nand took over only defined portions of an estate, this could
\nbe  open to serious challenge on the ground that it was\t not
\ncontemplated  by  the  scheme of  the  enactment.   But\t the
\nacceptance  of\tthis  principle does not,  in  our  opinion,
\ncompel us to answer the question pro. pounded by the learned
\nCounsel for the appellants in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
To  start  with,  it  might be pointed\tout  that  it  looks
\nsomewhat  anomalous that learned Counsel who strongly  urges
\nthat the scheme of the Act contemplates the taking over only
\nof  the entirety of an estate and not of a portion  thereof,
\nshould\tresist\ta  taking over which,  if  effective,  would
\nresult\tin the entire estate vesting in the  Government\t and
\nthe  compensation  being determined according to  the  rules
\nlaid down by the Act, whereas it is the invalidation of\t the
\nimpugned  notification\tthat would result in  a\t partial  or
\npiece-meal   taking  over,  to\tthe  disadvantage   of\t the
\nproprietors to which learned Counsel very properly drew\t our
\nattention.\n<\/p>\n
547<\/span><\/p>\n
As already pointed out learned Counsel’s submission was that
\nnot  merely  the notification dated -January 14,  1953,\t but
\nalso  the earlier one dated August 15, 1950 (as modified  by
\nthe  one dated September 5, 1950) was invalid  as  providing
\nfor vesting of parts only of an “estate” and not of it as  a
\nunit.\tIt would also follow that if the first\tnotification
\ndated August 15, 1950, was valid, the impugned\tnotification
\nwhich by its operation effected the vesting of the  entirety
\nof the estate in the State could not be open to challenge as
\nviolating the principle invoked by learned Counsel.
\nWe are necessarily therefore driven to consider the validity
\nof the first notification dated August 15, 1950, in  dealing
\nwith  the validity of the impugned notification\t of  January
\n14,  1953.   In considering this matter it is  necessary  to
\nrecall some of the provisions of the Abolition Act.  Section
\n2(3)   defines\t“an  estate”  as  meaning,  inter  alia,   a
\n“zamindari estate”.  No doubt, as stated already, where\t the
\nAbolition  Act\toperates  over the  whole  of  “a  zamindari
\nestate”, it does not contemplate the Government taking\tover
\na  portion  only of such “estate”.  But in  saying  this  it
\nshould not be assumed that if in respect of a single  estate
\ntwo  notifications were issued, say on the same\t date  which
\ntogether  vested the entirety of the “estate” in  the  State
\nunder  s. 3, either notification or both together  would  be
\ninvalid or ineffective.\t The reason for this must  obviously
\nbe that the intention of the Government was to take over the
\nentire\testate-though  it was being given effect to  by\t the
\nissue of two notifications.  That would not obviously be the
\nsame thing as the Government having the liberty to pick\t and
\nchoose\tcertain\t of the villages or certain portions  of  an
\nestate leaving out others.  If the Abolition Act as  enacted
\ndoes  not ‘extend to the entirety of an “estate” as  defined
\nin  the Estates Land Act but only to a portion thereof,\t the
\nquestion would be whether that portion of “the estate” which
\nis within the operation of the Act is “an estate” within the
\nmeaning\t of  the Act or not.  On this matter there  are\t two
\nviews possible: (1) that having regard to the Abolition\t Act
\nreferring to and as it were incorporating the provisions  of
\nthe
\n548<\/span>
\nMadras\tEstates\t Land  Act,  the  “estates”  to\t which\t the
\nAbolition  Act\tcould  apply  are  only\t those\twhich  being
\n“Estates”  within  the\tEstates Land Act,  are\talso  wholly
\nwithin the operation of the Abolition Act.  In other  words,
\neven if a few acres of an “estate” as defined in the Estates
\nLand Act were outside the operation of the Abolition Act, it
\nwould not be an “estate” which could be taken over. (2)\t The
\nother  view  attributing a crucial value to the\t policy\t and
\npurpose\t underlying the legislation, viz., a reform of\tland
\ntenures and landholding by the elimination of intermediaries
\nto  treat any land held on the tenures specified and  within
\nthe  territorial operation of the Act as falling within\t the
\ncategory of “estates” liable to be taken over and vested  in
\nGovernment.   We  consider  that the latter view  is  to  be
\npreferred  as being in accord with the intention of the\t law
\nand  as\t subserving  its purposes.  In\tthis  connection  it
\ncannot\tbe  overlooked that the entire argument\t of  learned
\nCounsel is built up on the definitions of an “estate” in  s.
\n2 of the Abolition Act (read with s. 1(3) of that Act),\t and
\nthat the definitions contained there could be applied on the
\nterms  of  the opening words of that  section  only  “unless
\nthere is anything repugnant in the subject or context.”\t The
\nposition could possibly be better explained in these  terms:
\nAssume\tthat Regulation IV of 1951 was not  enacted.   Could
\nthe State Government take over that portion of the  “estate”
\nwhich was within the operation of the Abolition Act or\tdoes
\nthe  definition of “an estate” and the reference s. 1(3)  to
\ns. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 preclude\t the
\nState from taking over that portion because the Act does not
\nextend\tto the entirety of the “estate”?  It appears  to  us
\nthat this question is capable of being answered only in\t one
\nway,  viz.,  that  the\tdefinition of  “an  estate”  in\t the
\nAbolition Act must be limited to that portion of an “estate”
\nwhich  is  within  the\toperation of  the  Act.\t  Any  other
\nconstruction would mean that if that Act did not apply to  a
\nfew  square yards in an estate, it ceases to be an  “estate”
\ngoverned by the Act, which, in our opinion, would be plainly
\ncontrary to the intention of the enactment as
\n\t\t\t    547<\/span>
\nAs already pointed out learned Counsel’s submission was that
\nnot  merely  the notification dated -January 14,  1953,\t but
\nalso  the earlier one dated August 15, 1950 (as modified  by
\nthe  one dated September 5, 1950) was invalid  as  providing
\nfor vesting of parts only of an “estate” and not of it as  a
\nunit.\tIt would also follow that if the first\tnotification
\ndated August 15, 1950, was valid, the impugned\tnotification
\nwhich by its operation effected the vesting of the  entirety
\nof the estate in the State could not be open to challenge as
\nviolating the principle invoked by learned Counsel.
\nWe are necessarily therefore driven to consider the validity
\nof the first notification dated August 15, 1950, in  dealing
\nwith  the validity of the impugned notification\t of  January
\n14,  1953.   In considering this matter it is  necessary  to
\nrecall some of the provisions of the Abolition Act.  Section
\n2(3)   defines\t“an  estate”  as  meaning,  inter  alia,   a
\n“zamindari estate”.  No doubt, as stated already, where\t the
\nAbolition  Act\toperates  over the  whole  of  “a  zamindari
\nestate”, it does not contemplate the Government taking\tover
\na  portion  only of such “estate”.  But in  saying  this  it
\nshould not be assumed that if in respect of a single  estate
\ntwo  notifications were issued, say on the same\t date  which
\ntogether  vested the entirety of the “estate” in  the  State
\nunder  s. 3, either notification or both together  would  be
\ninvalid or ineffective.\t The reason for this must  obviously
\nbe that the intention of the Government was to take over the
\nentire\testate-though  it was being given effect to  by\t the
\nissue of two notifications.  That would not obviously be the
\nsame thing as the Government having the liberty to pick\t and
\nchoose\tcertain\t of the villages or certain portions  of  an
\nestate leaving out others.  If the Abolition Act as  enacted
\ndoes not extend to the entirety of an “estate” as defined in
\nthe  Estates  Land Act but only to a  portion  thereof,\t the
\nquestion would be whether that portion of “the estate” which
\nis within the operation of the Act is “an estate” within the
\nmeaning\t of  the Act or not.  On this matter there  are\t two
\nviews possible: (1) that having regard to the Abolition\t Act
\nreferring to and as it were incorporating the provisions  of
\nthe
\n548<\/span>
\nMadras\tEstates\t Land  Act,  the  “estates”  to\t which\t the
\nAbolition  Act\tcould  apply  are  only\t those\twhich  being
\n“Estates”  within  the\tEstates Land Act,  are\talso  wholly
\nwithin the operation of the Abolition Act.  In other  words,
\neven if a few acres of an “estate” as defined in the Estates
\nLand Act were outside the operation of the Abolition Act, it
\nwould not be an “estate” which could be taken over. (2)\t The
\nother  view  attributing a crucial value to the\t policy\t and
\npurpose\t underlying the legislation, viz., a reform of\tland
\ntenures and landholding by the elimination of intermediaries
\nto  treat any land held on the tenures specified and  within
\nthe  territorial operation of the Act as falling within\t the
\ncategory of “estates” liable to be taken over and vested  in
\nGovernment.   We  consider  that the latter view  is  to  be
\npreferred  as being in accord with the intention of the\t law
\nand  as\t subserving  its purposes.  In\tthis  connection  it
\ncannot\tbe  overlooked that the entire argument\t of  learned
\nCounsel is built up on the definitions of an “estate” in  s.
\n2 of the Abolition Act (read with s. 1(3) of that Act),\t and
\nthat the definitions contained there could be applied on the
\nterms of the opening words of that section only ” unless
\nthere is anything repugnant in the subject or context.”\t The
\nposition could possibly be better explained in these  terms:
\nAssume\tthat Regulation IV of 1951 was not  enacted.   Could
\nthe State Government take over that portion of the  “estate”
\nwhich was within the operation of the Abolition Act or\tdoes
\nthe  definition of “an estate” and the reference s. 1(3)  to
\ns. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 preclude\t the
\nState from taking over that portion because the Act does not
\nextend\tto the entirety of the “estate”?  It appears  to  us
\nthat this question is capable of being answered only in\t one
\nway,  viz.,  that  the\tdefinition of  “an  estate”  in\t the
\nAbolition Act must-be limited to that portion of an “estate”
\nwhich  is  within  the\toperation of  the  Act.\t  Any  other
\nconstruction would mean that if that Act did not apply to  a
\nfew  square yards in an estate, it ceases to be an  “estate”
\ngoverned by the Act, which, in our opinion, would be plainly
\ncontrary to the intention of the enactment as
\n549<\/span>
\ngathered from its preamble and operative provisions.  Let us
\nsuppose that instead of the problem created by a portion  of
\nthe  estate being in a Scheduled area and  therefore  though
\nwithin the State outside the normal legislative power of the
\nState  Legislature,  a\tpermanently settled  estate  had  by
\nreason\tof say the State’s Reorganisation, fell both  within
\nthe territory of the Madras and the Andhra States, with\t the
\nresult that the taking over under the Abolition Act could be
\noperative only in regard to that portion within the State of
\nMadras.\t Could it then be contended that the portion of\t the
\nestate\twithin the State of Madras did not fall\t within\t the
\ndefinition  of an estate and so could not be taken  over  by
\nnotification  under s. 1(4) of the Act.\t Indeed, the  answer
\nof the learned Counsel for the appellants to such a question
\nwas  that it could be taken over but for the reason that  in
\nsuch  a case the portions outside the State territory  could
\nnot  be an ”  estate” within the Madras Estates Land Act  at
\nall  and that in consequence the inter-relation between\t the
\nunit constituting the estate under the Estates Land Act\t and
\nthe  concept of an “estate” under the Abolition Act was\t not
\ndisrupted.  But this, however, hardly suffices as a complete
\nanswer,\t for even after a portion of the  “estate”  becoming
\nsituated in a State other than Madras the State might  still
\nbe governed by the “Madras Estates Land Act”, though applied
\nas  the\t law  of tile new State.  What is  relevant  in\t the
\nillustration is that along with the concept of the unit con-
\nstituting  the\t“estate”  being taken over,  there  is\talso
\nunderlying   it,  another  principle,  viz.,  that   it\t  is
\nsufficient  if\tthe entirety of the estate  over  which\t the
\nState  Legislature has competence is taken over.  In such  a
\ntaking\tover the difficulty suggested by learned Counsel  in
\nworking\t out the scheme of the Act, would not arise  because
\nthe  portion taken over will constitute the estate  and\t the
\ncompensation  for that unit will be worked out on the  basis
\nlaid down in s. 24 and those following.\t The other  portions
\nof the estate which are beyond the territorial operation  of
\nthe  enactment would continue to remain unaffected, so\tthat
\nthe State
\n70<\/span>
\n550<\/span>
\nGovernment could not be in a position to take them over.
\nWe  accordingly, consider that the first notification  dated
\nAugust\t15, 1950, apart from its being binding and not\topen
\nto  challenge  in these proceedings by\tthe  appellants,  is
\nvalid  and effective in law to vest the portion to which  it
\nrelated in the State Government.  We then have Regulation IV
\nof  1951  which brought the other portion of the  estate  to
\nwhich the Abolition Act did not originally extend within the
\noperation  of that enactment.  If, after this change in\t the
\nlaw,  the  Government  did not take over  the  rest  of\t the
\nestate,\t it  would be open to the objection that  the  State
\nGovernment  had\t artificially split up the estate  into\t two
\nparts  and  had\t taken\tover  or  rather  retained  in\t its
\npossession  one part, and that notwithstanding that the\t Act
\nposited\t the unit constituting an estate being\ttaken  over,
\nhad departed from that principle.  The impugned notification
\ntherefore far from being invalid, was necessary to be issued
\nin order to satisfy the very principle which learned Counsel
\nfor the appellants submits-as the one underlying the scheme
\nof the Abolition Act.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore hold that the challenge to the validity of\t the
\nimpugned  notification\tdated January 14,  1953,  should  be
\nrepelled.   We have thus reached the same conclusion as\t the
\nlearned Judges of the High Court, though by a different line
\nof reasoning.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals fail and are dismissed with cost–one set.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
551<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 71, 1962 SCR (2) 535 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: HOTA VENKATA SURYA SIVARAMA SASTRY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":5506,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961"},"wordCount":5506,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961","name":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T21:25:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hota-venkata-surya-sivarama-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-28-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}