# ~ ' VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AND ORS v. NORI VENKATARAMA DEEKSHITHULU AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1991] 2 S.C.R. 531
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1991-04-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 931 of 1977
- **Bench:** N.M. Kasliwal, K. Ramaswamy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vatticherukuru-village-panchayat-and-ors-v-nori-venkatarama-deekshithulu-and-ors-11216
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

B
A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964--Sectiims 64 and 65-Property
of income belongs to or administered for benefit of villagers in
common-Vests in Gram Panchayat.
A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964--Section 85-Vesting of Water
courses and tanks, lands used by public with Gram PanchayatAssumption of management by Government, subject to villagers' prescriptive right.
A.P. lnams (Abolition and Conversion 'into Ryotwari) Act,
1956-Section 8-Tank-Grant of ryotwari patta to users of inam
land-Conclusive nature of their right, title and interest.
Constitution of India, 1950-Preamble, Chapter IV read with
section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Social legislation-Conferring power and jurisdiction on Tribunals-Orders passed by themPinality-Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Purpose ofDecisions of Revenue Courts under section 3 read with section 7, Jnams
Act-Whether retriable in Civil Court.
Words and Phrases-'Vest', 'Vested', 'Vesting'-Meaning of.
c
D
E
Civil Appeal Nos. 931 of 1977 and 200 of 1978 relate to the same
F
dispute though arose from two suits and separae judgments.
Civil Appeal No. 931 of 1977 arose out of the suit for possession by
the Gram Panchayat against the descendants of the grantee of inam.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and was confirmed by the
High Court and the High Court granted leave under Art. 133.
G
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 arose out of the suit for possession
and mesne profits which was laid by the descendants of the grantee of
inam. The pleadings are the same in both cases.
A Zamindar granted 100 acres of land .in inam to dig, preserve
H
531
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
and maintain a tank in favour of the predecessors of the respondents of
C.A. No. 931/77.
In 1700 A.D.i.e., 1190 Fasli, the tank was dug by the villagers and
ever since, the villagers were using the tank for their drinking purpose
B
and perfected their right by prescription.
In course of time the tank was silted up and fre•lt water existed
only in and around 30 acres. The grantee's descendants-respondents
did not make any repairs. Grass and trees had been grown in the rest of
the area and was being enjoyed.
c
Under section 3 of the A.P. loams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, (Act XXXVII of 1956) Ryotwari Patta was granted to
the respondents in individual capacity and on appeal the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the same and it became final, as it was not
challenged any further.
D
On 7. 7 .1965, the Gram Panchayat - the appellant in C.A. No.
931/77 took unilateral possession of the tank and ever since, it was
exercising possession, supervision and control over it.
After the expiry of three years from the date of dispossession, the
E
respondents flied a suit for possession based on title. Earlier thereto the
appellant-Gram Panchayat had flied a suit for possession.
The Trial Court found that the tank was a 'public trust', the
appellants would he hereditary trustees and could be removed only by
taking action under s. 77 of the A.P. Hindu Charitable and Religious
F
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and that the respondents had
acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly the snit for possession
was decreed relegating the flling of a separate application for mesne
profits.
On appeal, the High Conrt reversed the decree and held that the
G
tank was a pnblic tank, and the tank and the lands stood vested in the
Gram Panchayat under A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Since, the
Gram Panchayat was in possession from Joly 7, 1966, thongh dispossessed the respondents forcibly and as the snit was not under s. 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, but one based on title, it called for no interference and dismissed the snit. This Court granted leave to appeal
H
under Article 136.
.. -
~
7'
_,,_
~
\-
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHJTHULU
533
The respondents in C.A. No. 931/77 (the appellants in C.A. No.
200/78) contended that in view of the entries of the Inam Fair Register,
the tank was a public trust and not a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,865 of 83,597. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39865 for what follows._

r
~
'
VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AND ORS.
A
v.
NORI VENKATARAMA DEEKSHITHULU AND ORS.
APRIL 26, 1991
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
B
A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964--Sectiims 64 and 65-Property
of income belongs to or administered for benefit of villagers in
common-Vests in Gram Panchayat.
A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964--Section 85-Vesting of Water
courses and tanks, lands used by public with Gram PanchayatAssumption of management by Government, subject to villagers' prescriptive right.
A.P. lnams (Abolition and Conversion 'into Ryotwari) Act,
1956-Section 8-Tank-Grant of ryotwari patta to users of inam
land-Conclusive nature of their right, title and interest.
Constitution of India, 1950-Preamble, Chapter IV read with
section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Social legislation-Conferring power and jurisdiction on Tribunals-Orders passed by themPinality-Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Purpose ofDecisions of Revenue Courts under section 3 read with section 7, Jnams
Act-Whether retriable in Civil Court.
Words and Phrases-'Vest', 'Vested', 'Vesting'-Meaning of.
c
D
E
Civil Appeal Nos. 931 of 1977 and 200 of 1978 relate to the same
F
dispute though arose from two suits and separae judgments.
Civil Appeal No. 931 of 1977 arose out of the suit for possession by
the Gram Panchayat against the descendants of the grantee of inam.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and was confirmed by the
High Court and the High Court granted leave under Art. 133.
G
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 arose out of the suit for possession
and mesne profits which was laid by the descendants of the grantee of
inam. The pleadings are the same in both cases.
A Zamindar granted 100 acres of land .in inam to dig, preserve
H
531
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
and maintain a tank in favour of the predecessors of the respondents of
C.A. No. 931/77.
In 1700 A.D.i.e., 1190 Fasli, the tank was dug by the villagers and
ever since, the villagers were using the tank for their drinking purpose
B
and perfected their right by prescription.
In course of time the tank was silted up and fre•lt water existed
only in and around 30 acres. The grantee's descendants-respondents
did not make any repairs. Grass and trees had been grown in the rest of
the area and was being enjoyed.
c
Under section 3 of the A.P. loams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, (Act XXXVII of 1956) Ryotwari Patta was granted to
the respondents in individual capacity and on appeal the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the same and it became final, as it was not
challenged any further.
D
On 7. 7 .1965, the Gram Panchayat - the appellant in C.A. No.
931/77 took unilateral possession of the tank and ever since, it was
exercising possession, supervision and control over it.
After the expiry of three years from the date of dispossession, the
E
respondents flied a suit for possession based on title. Earlier thereto the
appellant-Gram Panchayat had flied a suit for possession.
The Trial Court found that the tank was a 'public trust', the
appellants would he hereditary trustees and could be removed only by
taking action under s. 77 of the A.P. Hindu Charitable and Religious
F
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and that the respondents had
acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly the snit for possession
was decreed relegating the flling of a separate application for mesne
profits.
On appeal, the High Conrt reversed the decree and held that the
G
tank was a pnblic tank, and the tank and the lands stood vested in the
Gram Panchayat under A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Since, the
Gram Panchayat was in possession from Joly 7, 1966, thongh dispossessed the respondents forcibly and as the snit was not under s. 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, but one based on title, it called for no interference and dismissed the snit. This Court granted leave to appeal
H
under Article 136.
.. -
~
7'
_,,_
~
\-
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHJTHULU
533
The respondents in C.A. No. 931/77 (the appellants in C.A. No.
200/78) contended that in view of the entries of the Inam Fair Register,
the tank was a public trust and not a public tank; they could not be
dispossessed until recourse made under section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act; that under the
Gram Panchayat Act, the lands did not vest in the Gram Panchayat;
and that since the grant of ryotwari patta under the loams Act had
become rmal, S. 14 thereof barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
entertain the suit.
The appellant-Gram Panchayat in C.A. No. 931/77 (the respondents in C.A. No. 200/78) contended that the tank and the appurtenant
land was correctly held as public tank by the High Court that by operation of sections 85 and 64 of the Gram Panchayat Act, the land and the
tank stood vested in the Panchayat, that the entries in the Inam Fair
Register established that the grant of land was for preservation, maintenance and repairs of the tank and therefore, the grant should be in
favonr of the institution, i.e., the tank and the respondents thereby did
not acquire any title, that ryotwari patta was only for the purpose of
land revenue; that the Gram Panchayat acquired absolute right, title
and interest in the land; and the suit was not a bar in the facts of the
case.
Dismissing both appeals, this Court
HELD: 1.01. Any property or income, which belongs to or has
been administered for the benefit of the villagers in common or the
holders in any of the village land generally or of land of a particular
description or of lands under particular source of irrigation shall vest in
A
B
c
D
E
the Gram Panchayat and be administered by it for the benefit Of the
villagers or holders. The lands or income used for communal purpose F
shall either belong to the Gram Panchayat or has been administered by
the Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of the Gram Panchayat nor any
finding recorded by the courts below to that effect. So. s. 64 is not
attracted though the villagers acquired prescriptive right to use the
water from the tank for their use and of their cattle. [5540-F]
1.02. AU public water-courses, springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, etc. and other water works either existing on the date of the Act
G
or made thereafter by the Gram Panchayat, or otherwise including
those used by the public ripened into prescriptive right for the use and
benefit of the public and also adjacent or any appurtenant land not H
being private property shall vest in the Gram Panchayat under s. 85( 1)
A
B
c
D
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
and be subject to its control. [554F-G]
2.01. The word 'vesting' in s. 85 would signify that the watercourses aud tanks, lauds etc. used by the public to such an extent as to
give a prescriptive right to their use, are vested in the Gram Panchayat,
and placed them under the control and supervision of the Gram
Panchayat. It confers no absolute or full title. It was open to the
Government, even after vesting, to place restrictions upon the Gram
Pancbayat in the matter of enjoyment and use of such tanks, and
appurtenant lands etc. The assumption of management by the Government would be subject to the prescriptive right of the villagers, if any.
The vesting of the tanks etc. in the Gran: Panchayat was with absolute
rights and the village community rights would over-ride against rights
of the Government. [546C-F]
2.02. The tank is a public tank aud not a public trust and t_bat
under s. 85(1) ands. 64, the vesting of the tanks, the appurtenant land
and the common land is only for the purpose of possession, supervision,
control and use thereof for the villagers for common use subject to the
over-riding title hy the Government and its assumption of management
should he in terms of sub-s. (3) of s. 85 of the Act and subject to the
prescriptive right in the water, water spread tank for common use. [547A-B]
Gram Panchayat, Mandapaka & Ors. v. Distt. Collector, Eluru
E
& Ors. AIR 1982 AP 15, approved.
Anna Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. Kurra Venkata Narasayya &
Ors., (1981] AWR325, over-ruled.
3.01. Under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905; Talengana Area
F
Land Revenue Act, relevant Abolition Acts like A.P. Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into R:yotwari) Act, 1948, loams Abolition Act etc. give
absolute rights of vesting in the State over the forest land, tanks, rivers,
mines, poramboke, land, etc. free from all encumbrances and the preexisting rights in the other bmd stood abolished and will he subject to
the grant of Ryotwari Patta etc. [546F-Hj
G
3.02. Grant of Ryotwari patta is not a title hut a right coupled
with possession to remain in occupation aud enjoyment, subject to payment of the land revenue to the State. [ 546H]
3.03. The entries in the loam Fair Register are great acts of the
H
State and coupled with the entries in the survey and settlement record
.... -
'""' ,1.
.
"'·
•
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU
535
furnishes unimpeachable evidence. On construction of these documents, it would clearly emerge that the original grant was made for the
preservation and maintenance of the tank and tax-free lnarn land was
granted for that purpose, thongb it was in the name of the individual
grantee. The grant was for the preservation and maintenance of the
tank. [548C-D]
3.04. The grant was for the institution. Under s. 3 of the Inams
Act, the enquiry should be, whether ( 1) a particular land is Inam land;
(2) Inarn land in a Ryotwari, Zamindar or lnam Village; and (3) is held
by any institution. In view of the f"mding that the grant was for the
preservation and maintenance of tank, the Inam land in an inam village
was held by the institution, namely, the tank. Ryotwari patta shall,
therefore, be in favour of the institution. Undoubtedly the ryotwari
patta was granted in favour of the descendants. [5480-F]
3.05. The pattas were obtained in the individuals name, the
trustees of an institution cannot derive personal advantage from the
administration of the trust property. The grant of patta was for the
maintenance of the trust. [ 548G]
A
B
c
D
3.06. The descendants, though enjoyed the income from the
properties, did not effect the repairs and neglected the maintenance and
upkeep of the tank. They rendered the tank disused and abandoned. By
operation of s. 85 of the Act the lands and tank stood vested in the Gram
E
Panchayat for control, management and supervision. [550E-F]
3.07. A hereditary trustee is entitled to be the Chairman of a
Board of Trustees, if any, constituted under the Endowment Act or else
be in exclusive possession and management of the public trust
registered thereunder until he is removed as per the procedure proF
vided therein. Since the tank always remained a public tank and not
being a public trust, the Endowment Act does not apply. Therefore, the
qμestion of initiating action under s. 77 of the Endowment Act for
removal of the descendants as trustees does not arise. [ 550F-G I
Arunachalam Chetty v. Venkatachalpathi Ga_ru Swamigal, AIR
G
1919 P.C. 62 at P. 65; Syed Md. Mazaffaral Musavi v. Bibi Jabeda &
Ors., AIR 1930 PC 1031; Bhojrajv. Sita Ram & Ors, AIR 1936 P.C. 60;
M. Srinivasacharyulu & Ors. v. Dinawahi Pratyanga Rao & Ors., AIR
1921 Madras 467; Ravipati Kotayya & Anr. v. Ramaswamy Subbaraydu & Ors., [1956] 2 A.W.R. 739, referred to.
H
A
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
K. V. Krishna Rao v. Sub-Colletor, Ongole, [1969] l S.C.R. 624,
followed.
Nori Venkatarama Dikshitulu & Ors. v. Ravi Venkatappayya &
J, -
Ors., [1959] 2 A.W.R. 357, approved.
B
Krishan Nair Boppudu Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narac
D
E
F
G
H
simhaswamy Varu, [1963] 1 A.W.R. 214; Bhupathiraju Venkatapathiraju
& Ors. v. The President Taluq Board, Narsapur & Ors.; [1913) 19 J.C.
727 (Mad.) (D.B.), distinguished.
Tagore Law Lecture, "Hindu Religious Endowments and Institutions at P. 6, distinguished.
4.01. In the laws made to restructure the social order creating
rights in favour of the citizens and conferring power and jurisdiction on
the· hierarchy of Tribunals or the authorities constituted thereunder
and giving fmality to their orders or decisions and divested the jurisdiction of the established civil courts expressly or by necessary implication.
Departure in the allocation of the judicial functions would not be viewed
with disfavour for creating the new forums and entrusting the duties
under the statutes to implement socio-economic and fiscal laws. Courts
have to consider, when questioned, why the legislature made this
departure. The reason is obvious. The tradition bound civil courts gripped with rules of pleading and strict rules of evidence and tardy trial,
four tier apppeals, endless revisions and reviews under C.P.C. are not
suited to the needed expeditious dispensation. The adjudicatory system
provided in the new forums is cheap and rapid. The procedure before
the Tribunal is simple and not hide bound by the intricate procedure of
pleadings, trial, admissibility of the evidence and proof of facts according to law. Therefore, there is abundant flexibility in the discharge. of
the functions with greater expedition and inexpensiveness. [ 5520-H)
4.02. In order to find out the purpose in creating the Tribunals
under the statutes and the meaning of particular provisions in social
legislation, the Court would adopt the purposive approach to ascertain
the social ends envisaged in the Act, to consider scheme of the Act as an
integrated whole and practical means by which it was sought to be
effectuated to achieve them. Meticulous lexographic analysis of words
and phrases and sentences should be subordinate to this purposive
approach. The dynamics of the interpretative functioning of the Court
is to reflect the contemporary needs and the prevailing values consistent
with the constitutional and legislative declaration of the policy envisa'
.,
·f
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU
537
ged in the statute under consideration. [552H-553B]
4.03. The law should, therefore, respond to the clarion call of
social imperatives evolve in that process functional approach as means
to subser~.e-''social promises'' set out in the Preamble, Directive Principles and the Fundamental Right• of the Constitution. [5530]
4.04. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that
whenever a question arises before the Civil Court whether its jurisdiction is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, the court naturally feels inclined to consider whether remedy afforded by an alternative provision prescribed by special statute is sufficient or adequate. In
cases where exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly provided for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question
and the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedy provided for by it may be
relevant, but cannot be decisive. Where exclusion is pleaded as a matter
of necessary implication such consideration would be very important
and inconceivable circumstances might become even decisive. [ 553G-554B]
A
B
c
D
4.05. The jurisdiction of a Tribunal created under statute may
depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is collateral to the actual
matter which the Tribunal has to try and the determination whether it
existed or not is logically temporary prior to the determination of the
actual question which the Tribunal has to consider. At the inception of
E
an enquiry by a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, when a challenge is
made to its jurisdiction, the Tribunal has to consider as the collateral
fact whether it would act or not and for that purpose to arrive at some
decision as to whether it has jurisdiction or not. There may be Tribunal ·
which by virtue of the law constituting it has the power to determine
finally, even the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of its
F
jurisdiction depends; but subject to that, the Tribunal cannot by a
wrong decision with regard to collateral fact, give itself a jurisdiction
which it would not otherwise have except such tribunals of limited
jurisdi~tion when the statute not only empowers to enquire into jurisdictional facts but also the rights and controversy finally it is entitled to
enter on the enquiry and reach a decision rightly or. wrongly. If it has
G
jurisdiction to do right, it has jurisdiction to do wrong. It may be
irregular or illegal which could be corrected in appeal or revision subject to that the order would become final. [5548-F[
4.06. The loams Act did not intend to leave the decisions of the
revenue courts under s. 3 read with s. 7 to retry the issue once over.in the
civil court. [5610-E]
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
4.07. The glimpse of the object of the Inams Act, scheme, scope
and operation thereof clearly manifest that loams Act is a self contained
code, expressly provided rights and liabilities; prescribed procedure;
remedies; of appeal and revision, excluded the jurisdiction of the civil
court, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, given primacy of
B
c
D
loams Act though inconsistent with any law or instrument having force
of law. The jurisdictional rmdings are an integral scheme to grant or
refuse ryotwari patta under s. 3, read with s. 7 and not collateral
findings. It was subject to appeal and revision and certiorari under Art.
226. The decision of the Revenue Tribunal, are final and conclusive
between the parties or persons claiming right, title or interest through
them. The trick of pleadings and the camouflage of the reliefs are not
decisive but the substance or the effect on the order of the tribunal
under the loams Act are decisive. The civil suit except on grounds of
fraud, misrepresentation or collusion of the parties is not maintainable.
The necessary conclusion would be that the civil suit is not maintainable
when the decree directly nullifies the ryotwari patta granted under s. 3
of the loams Act. [56IE-562A]
Deena v. Union of India, [1984] 1 SCR, referred to.
Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, [1966] 1SCR64; Secretary
of State v. Mask & Co., [1940] L.R. 671.A. 222; Raleigh Investment Co.
Ltd. v. Governor-General in Council, L.R. 74 I.A. 50; Firm and Il/uri
E
Subbayya Chetty & Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1964] 1 SCR 752;
Desika Charyulu v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 807; Dhulabhai & Ors
v. State of M.P. & Anr., [1968] 3 SCR 662; Hatti v. Sunder Singh,
[1971] 2 SCR 163; Muddada Chayana v. Karam Narayana and Anr.
etc., [1979] 3 SCR 201; T. Munuswami Naidu v. R. Venkata Reddy,
AIR 1978 A.P. 200; 0. Chenchulakshmamma & Anr. v. D. SubraF
manya Reddy, [1980] 1 SCR 1006; A. Bodayya & Anr. v. L.
Ramaswamy (dead) by Lrs., [1984] Suppl. SCC 391; Doe v. Bridges,
[ 1831] 1 B & Ad. 347 at p. 359; Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar
Shantara,,; Wadke and Ors., [ 1976) 1 SCR 427; State of Tamil Nadu v.
Ramalinga Samigal Madam, [1985) 4 SCC 10; Syama/a Rao v. Sri
Radhakanthaswami Varu, [ 1984] 1 A.P .L.J. 113; Jyotish Thakur & Ors.
G
v. Tarakant Jha & Ors., [1963] Suppl. 1SCR13; Sri Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, [1964) 3 SCR 763; Sri
Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Pattabhirami
Reddy, [1967] 1 SCR 280; Shree Raja Kandragula Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao Panthulu Bahadur Garu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1970)
2 SCR 714; Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma v. Gyan Chandra & Ors.,
H
[1980] 3 SCR 207; Anne Basant National Girls High School v. Dy.
•
+·
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU
539
Director of Public Instruction & Ors., [1983) 1 SCC 200; Raja Ram
Kumar Bhargava (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India, [1988) 2 SCR 352;
Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd., etc. v. The Dy. Commissioner, Lakhimpur,
etc.., [1968) 1 SCR 260 and K. Chintamani Dora & Ors. v. G. Annamnaidu & Ors., [1974] 2 SCR 655, distinguished.
A
D. V. Raju v. B.G. Rao & Anr., [1961) 2 A.W.R. 368, approved.
B
P.Pedagovindayy v. Subba Rao, [1969) 2 A;L.T. 336, over-ruled •
.. ;.,.f
5.01. The word 'vest' clothes varied colours from the context and
situation in which the word came to be used in a statute of rule. I 545B-C]
5.02. The word 'vest', means, to give an immediate, fixed right of
present or future enjoyment, to accrue to, to he fixed, to take effect, to
clothe with possession, to deliver full possession of land or of an estate,
to give seisin to enfeoff. [545C-D]
c
5.03. The word, 'vest', in the absence of a context, is usually taken
D
to mean, 'vest' in interest rather than vest in possession'. [545E-F]
5.04. 'Vest'. "generally means to give the property in". [545E-F)
5.05. The word, 'vested' was defined, 'as to the interest acquired
by public bodies, created for a particufar purpose, in works, such as
E
embankments, which are 'vested' in them by statute.' [5450-E)
5.06. "Vesting" in the legal sense means, to settle, secure, or put
in fixed right of possession; to endow, to descend, devolve or to take
effect, as a right'. [545C]
Chamber's Mid-Century Dictionary at P. 1230; Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at P. 1401; Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition
Vol, 5 at P. 2938, Item 12, at P. 2940, Item 4 at P. 2939; Port of London
Authority v. Canvey Island Commissioners, [1932) l Ch. 446; Fruit and
Vegetable Merchants Union v. Delhi Improvement Trust, [1957) S.C.R.
F
I, referred to.
G
6. Under the Gram Panchayat Act the statutory Interposition of
vesting the tank and the appurtenant land in the Gram Panchayat made
it to retain possession, control and supervision over it, tbouglt the Gram
Panchayat unlawfully took possession. The need to grant decree for
possession m favour of the Gram Panchayat is thus redundant. The suit
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
of the descendants normally to be decreed on the finding that ryotwari
patta under s. 3 of the Inams Act was granted in their favour and that
they were unlawfully dispossessed. Since the grant of ryotwari patta,
though in the name of individuals, was to maintain the public tank
.A
4
which stood vested under s. 85 of the Act in the Gram Panchayat, the
descendants are divested of the right and interest acquired therein.
B
Thus the suit of the descendants also is liable to be dismissed. [562A-C]
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 931/
77 & 200/78.
Appeals by Certificate from the Judgment and Decree dated
J.4.76 and from the Judgment and Decree dated 19.6.1975 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. No. 71/73 and Appeal No. 259 of
1972.
B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants.
D
C. Sitaramiah, and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 931 of 1977 and 200 of
1978 relate to the same dispute though arose from two suits and sepaE
rate judgments. The Bench that heard Civil appeal No. 931 of 1977
directed on January 24, 1991 to list Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 for
common disposal. Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 arose out of O.S. No
118 of 1968 on the file of the Court of Addi. Subordinate Judge,
Guntur and Appeal No. 259 at 1972 dated June 19, 1975 of the A.P.
High Court. The suit for possession and mesne profits was laid by the
F
descendants of Nori Lakshmipathi Somayajulu of Vatticherukuru,
Guntur Taluq and District, for short 'N.L.S.'. The dispute relates to
the tank known as 'Nori Lakshmipathi Somayajulu's Western Tank'
"Vooracheruva" (Village Tank). It consists of 100 acres of which
roughly 30 acres is covered by water spread area marked 'A' Schedule.
'B' Schedule consists of 70 acres (silted up area). The tank was dug in
G
Fasli 1190 (1700 A.O.) Zamindar, Raja Manikya Rao made a grant of
the land for digging the tank and its preservation, maintenance and
repairs. It is the descendants' case that it is a private tank enjoyed by
the 'grantee', N.L.S. as owner and thereafter the descedants and
perfected the title by prescription. It was found as a fact by the High
Court and the descendants are unable to persuade us from the eviH dence to differ from the findings that the tank is a "public tank" dug b)
.,.
•
.....
.. -+
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU [RAMASWAMY, J.J 541
the villagers and ever since and as of right they have been drawing the
water from the tank for their use and for the cattle of the village. The
descendants' plea ancj evidence adduced in support thereof that it is
their private tank, was negated by both the courts. The Trial Court
found that the tank is a 'public trust', the appellants would be hereditary trustees and could be removed only by taking action under s. 77 of
the A.P. Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 for short 'the Endowments Act'. it also held that the
descendants acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly the suit
for possession was decreed relegating to file a separate application for
mesne profits. On appeal the High Court reversed the decree and held
that the tank is a public tank and the tank and the lands stood vested in
the Gram Panchayat under A.P. Gram Panchayat Act 2 of 1964 for
short 'the Act'. Since the Gram Panchayat was in possession from July
7, 1965, though dispossessed the descendants forcibly and as the suit is
not under s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 but one based on title, it
called for no interference. It dismissed the suit. This Court granted
leave to appeal under Article 136.
Civil Appeal No. 931 of 1977 arose out of the suit for possession
in O.S. No. 57 of 1966 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge at
Guntur filed by the Gram Panchayat against the descendants. The suit
was dismissed by the Trial Court and was confirmed by the High Court
in A.S. No. 71 of 1973 and the High Court granted leave under Art.
133 on Dec. 10. 1976. The pleadings are the same as in the other suit,
In addition the descendants further pleaded in the written statement
that the Gram Panchayat unlawfully took possession of the tank on
July 7, 1965. They also acquired title by grant of ryotwari patta under
s. 3 of the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act
(Act XXXVII of 1956), for short 'the lnams Act'. The Gram
Panchayat had no manner of right to interfere with their possession
and enjoyment. They also pleaded and adduced evidence tilat they
were leasing out the fishery rights and grass and trees grown on the
land. The income was being utilized for the repairs of tank. The Trial
Court and the High Court found that the lands were endowed to
N.L.S. for the maintenance of the tank and the descendants obtained
ryotwari patta under Inams Act and are entitled to remain in possession and enjoyment as owners subject to maintain the tank. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. On appeal in A.S. No. 71 of 1973 by
judgment dated April 1, 1976 the High Court confirmed the decree on
further finding that by operation of s. 14 of the lnams Act, Civil Suit
was barred. Thus both the appeals are before this Court.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
In Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978, Shri Seetharamaiah, learned
Senior Counsel for the descendants conceded that the descendants or
N .L.S have no exclusive personal right, title or interest in the tank and
the appurtenant total land of 100 acres. In view of the entries of the
Inams Fair Register for short 'I.F.R.', it is a public trust and not a
public tank. Unless recourse is had to remove them from trusteeship
B under s. 77 of the Endowments Act, Hie appellants cannot be dispossessed. Since admittedly N.L.S. and the descendants were enjoying
the property till date of dispossession, presumption of the continuance
of the enjoyment anterior thereto as owners could be drawn. The High
Court thereby committed error of law in holding that the lands stood
vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Act and that it is a public
C tank. In Civil Appeal No. 931of1977, it was further contend.ed that
since the grant of R yotwari patta under the In ams Act had Iiecame
final s. 14 thereof bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain
the suit. Shri B. Kanta Rao, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat
contended that the finding of the High Court that the tank and the
appurtenant land, namely, the plaint schedule property, as 'public
D tank', is based on evidence that the tank was dug by the villagers and
that they have been using for their drinking purposes and the cattle is a
finding of fact. By operation of ss. 85 and 64 of the Act, the land and
the tank stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. Entries in the I.F.R.
establishes that the grant of the land was for preservation, maintenance and repairs of the tank. Therefore, the grant should be in
E favour of the institution, namely, the tank. The pattas obtained by the
descendants should be for the benefit of the tank, though granted in
individual names. By operation of s. 85 of the Act, the descendants
acquired no personal title to the property. Ryotwari patta is only for
the purpose of land revenue. The Gram Panchayat acquired absolute
right title and interest in the land. The Civil Suit is not a bar on the
F
facts in this case.
Before appreciating the diverse contentions, the facts emerged
from the findings iri both the appeals could be gathered thus. Admittedly the Zamindar. Raja Manikya Rao granted 100 acres of land in
lnam village to dig the tank and the grant was for its preservation and
G
maintenance. the grant was in favour of N.L.S. In 1700 A.P., i.e. 1190
Fasli, the tank was dug by the villagers and ever since the villagers
have been using the fresh water tank for their drinking purposes and of
the cattle and perfected their right by prescription. In course of time
the tank was silted up and in and around 30 acres the water spread
area, fresh water is existing. No repairs were effected by the desH
cendants. The rest of the land was silted up. Grass and trees have been
- -t
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU [RAMASWAMY, J.] 543
grown thereon and was being enjoyed. On July 7, 1965, the Gram
Panchayat took unilateral possession of the tank and ever since was
exercising possession, supervision and control over it. After expiry of
three years from the date of dispossession, the descendants filed O.S.
No. 57 of 1966 for possession based on title. Earlier thereto the Gram
Panchayat filed the suit for possession. Under the Inams Act,
Ryotwari patta under s. 3 was granted to the descendants in individual
capacity and on appeal the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur confirmed the same. It became final as it was not challenged by filing any
writ petition. Both the suits now stood dismissed. The counsel on
other side have taken us through the evidence and we have carefully
scanned the evidence.
From these facts the first question emerges is whether the tank
and the appurtenant land stood vested in Gram Panchayat.
Section 64 of the Act reads thus:
A
B
c
"Vesting of common property or income in Gram
D
Panchayat-Any property or income which by custom
belongs to or has been administered for the benefit of the
villagers is common, or the holders in common of village
land generally or of land of a particular description or of
lands under a particular source of irrigation, shall vest in
the Gram Panchayat and be administered by it for the
E
benefit of the villagers or holders aforesaid".
Section 85 reads thus:
"Vesting of water works in Gram Panchayat-( 1) All public
water-courses, springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, founF
tains, wells, ponds and other water works (including those
used by the public to such an extent as to give a prescriptive
right to their use) whether existing at the commencement of
this Act or afterwards made, laid or erected and whether
made, laid or erected at the cost of the Gram Panchayat or
otherwise for the use or benefit of the public, and also any
G
adjacent land, not being private property, appertaining
thereto shall vest in the Gram Panchayat and be subject to its
control".
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any
work which is, or is connected with, a work of irrigation or
H
544
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
•
to any adjacent land appertaining to any such work.
(2) Subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, the Gram Panchayat shall have the fishery rights in
any water work vested in it under sub-section (1), the right
to supply water from any such work for raising seed beds on
payment of the prescribed fee, and the right to use the
adjacent land appertaining thereto for planting of trees and
enjoying the usufruct thereof or for like purpose.
(3) The Government may, by notification in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette, define or limit such control or may
assume the administration of any public source of watersupply and public land adjecent and appertainig thereto
after consulting the Gram Panchayat and giving due regard
to its objections, if any".
(emphasis supplied)
D
A bird's eye view of the provisions brings out vividly that any
property or income which belongs to or has been administered for the
benefit of the villagers in common or the holders in any of the village
land generally or of land of a particular description or of lands under
particular source of irrigation shall vest in the Gram Panchayat and be
administered by it for the benefit of the villagers or holders aforesaid.
E The lands or income used for communal purpose shall either belong to
the Gram Panchayat or has been administered by the Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of the Gram Panchayat nor any finding
recorded by the courts below to that effect. So s. 64 is not attracted,
though the villagers acquired prescriptive right to use the water from
the tank for their use and of their cattle.
F
All public water-courses, springs, reservoirs, tanks cisterns, etc.
and other water works either existing on the date of the Act or made
thereafter by the Gram Pancl)ayat, or otherwise including those used
by the public ripened into prescriptive right for the use and benefit of
the public and also adjacent or any appurtenant land not being private
G
property shall vest in the Gram Panchayat under s. 85(1) and be subject to its control. The proviso is not relevant for the purpose of this
case. Under sub-s. (2), the Gram Panchayat shall have fishery rights
therein subject to any restriction or control prescribed by the Govt. by
rules. The Gram Panchayat also shall have the right to use the adjacent
land appertaining thereto for planting trees and enjoying the usufruct
H
thereof or for like purposes. Sub-section (3) gives over-riding power to
,-
-
-
-+
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. DEEKSHITHULU [RAMASWAMY, J.l 545
the Govt., by a notification published in the A.P. Gazette to define or
limit the control or supervision by the Gram Panchayat or the Govt.
may assume administration of any public source of water supply and
public land adjacent an_d appertaining thereto. The only condition precedent thereto is prior consultation of the Gram Panchayat and to have
due regard to any objections. if raised, by the Gram Panchayat and
issue notification published in the Gazette resuming the water sources
or the land etc.
A
B
The word 'vest' clothes varied colours from the context and situation in which the word came to be used in a statute or rule. In
Chamber's Mid-Century Dictionary at p. 1230 defined "vesting" in the
legal sense 'to settle, secure, or put in fixed right of possession; to
C
endow, to descend, devolve or to take effect, as a right'. In Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition at p. 1401, the word, 'vest', to give an
immediate, fixed right of present or future enjoyment, to accrue to, to
be fixed, to take effect, to clothe with possession, to deliver full possession of land or of an estate, to give seisin to enfeoff. In Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition, Vol. 5 at p. 2938, the word 'vested'
D
was defined in several senses. At p. 2940 in item 12 it is stated thus 'as
to the interest acquired by public bodies, created for a particular
purpose, in works such as embankments which are 'vested' in them by -
statute, see Port of London Authority v. Canvey Island Commissioners, [1932] 1 Ch. 446 in which it was held that the statutory vesting
was to construct the sea w_all against inundation or damages etc. and
E
did not acquire fee simple. Item 4 at p. 2939, the word 'vest', in the
absence of a context, is usually taken to mean vest in interest rather
than vest in possession'. In item 8 to 'vest',. "generally means to give
the property in". Thus the word 'vest' bears variable colour taking its
content from the context in which it came to be used. Take for instance,
the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. By operation of F
ss. 16 & 17 thereof, the property so acquired shall vest absolutely in
the Government free from all encumbrances. Thereby, absolute right,
title and interest is vested in the Government without any limitation
divesting the pre-existing rights of its owner. Similarly, under s .. 56 of
tlie Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the estate of the insolvent vests
in the receiver only for the purpose of its administration and to pay off G
the debts to the creditors. The receiver acquired no personal interest
of his own in the property. The receiver appointed by the court takes
possession of the properties in the suit on behalf of the court and
administer the property on behalf of the ultimate successful party as an
officer of the court and he has no personal interest' in the property
vested thereunder. In Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. ~elhi; H;
A
B
c
D
E
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1991] 2 S.C.R.
Improvement Trust, [ 1957] SCR p. I the question was whether the
Delhi Improvement Trust was vested of the Nazul land belonging to
the Government with absolute right, when the property was entrusted
under the scheme for construction of the markets etc. It was held by
this court that placing the property at the disposal of the trust did not
signify that the Government had divested itself of its title to the property and transferred the same to the trust. The clauses in the agreement show that the Government had created the Trust as its agent not
off permanent basis but as a convenient mode of having the scheme of
improvement implemented by the Trust subject to the control of the
Government.
The word 'vesting' in s. 85 would signify that the water-courses
and tanks, lands etc. used by the public to such an extent as to give a
prescriptive right to their use, are vested in the Gram Panchayat, and
placed them under the control and supervision of the Gram Panchayat.
It confers no absolute or full title. It was open to the Government,
even after vesting, to place restrictions upon the Gram Panchayat in
the matter or enjoyment and use of such tanks, and appurtenant lands
etc. Sub-section (3) of s. 85 expressly makes the matter clear. It
empowers the Government to assume the administration of any such
tank or lands or to define or limit the control which is vested in the
Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat being a statutory body is bound by
the restrictions imposed by sub-s. (3) The assumption-0f management
by the Govt. would be subject to the prescriptive right of the vilagers if
any. The Division Bench in Gram Panchayat, Mandapaka & Ors. v.
Distt. Collector Eluru & Ors., AIR 1981 AP 15 considered the meaning of the word 'vesting' and correctly laid the law in its interpreting
s. 85 of the Act. Anna Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. Kurra Venkata
Narasayya & Ors., [1981] 1 AWR p. 325 relied on by Shri Kanta Rao,
F
though supports his contention that the vesting of the tanks etc. in the
Gram Panchayat was with absolute rights and the village community
rights would over-ride against rights of the Government, in our view
the law was not correctly laid down. Under A.P. Land Encroachment
Act, 1905; Talengana Area Land Revenue Act, relevant Abolition
Acts like A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
G
1948, Inams Abolition Act etc. give absolute rights of vesting in the
State over the forest land, tanks.