Exclusive jurisdiction over lawful ryot disputes under the ryotwari settlement scheme rests with the special statutory tribunals.

The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 creates a special scheme for abolition of estates and ryotwari settlement, including separate machinery for rival claims to ryotwari pattas and for disputes on who is the lawful ryot of a holding after notification. Section 56(1)(c) is an independent provision and is not confined by Section 55 or by Section 56(1)(a) and (b), because a narrower reading would frustrate the Act's object and deny an effective mechanism for deciding ryots' claims. Disputes on lawful ryot status must therefore be determined exclusively by the Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question who is the lawful ryot of a holding, arising after an estate is notified under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, is to be decided exclusively by the Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal under Section 56(1)(c), and whether that provision is confined only to disputes connected with arrears of rent under Section 55.

Analysis: The Act creates a special statutory scheme for abolition of estates and introduction of ryotwari settlement. It provides separate machinery for deciding rival claims for ryotwari pattas and, under Section 56(1)(c), for deciding disputes as to who the lawful ryot of a holding is after notification of the estate. The provision is not controlled by Section 55 or by Section 56(1)(a) and (b), because such a restriction would deny the Act an effective mechanism for deciding ryots' claims and would frustrate its object. The special tribunals constituted under the Act therefore have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes expressly entrusted to them.

Conclusion: The question whether the appellant or the respondents were the lawful ryots had to be decided by the Settlement Officer and, on appeal, by the Tribunal. The High Court's view restricting Section 56(1)(c) was incorrect, and the appeal failed.

---