APHC010272822020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 18020/2020 Between: Sri KalidasuJagannadham(died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Bhagath Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners for issuance of ryotwari patta, in respect of the subject land, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. 2 3. It is contended that the 1st petitioner’s father Kalidasu Sankaraiah was in occupation of the subject land of Ac.7.05 cents in Sy.Nos.54 & 157/2 as on 01.07.1945. The claim of the petitioners for grant of patta was rejected for an extent of Ac.2.68 cents in Sy.No.157/2 vide proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, dated 30.06.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, revision petition was filed before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide order dated 10.08.2000 rejected the revision petition, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.1986. Against the order passed under the revision, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.2118 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of remanding the matter to the Joint collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Ongole. Vide impugned order, the claim of the petitioners was once again rejected. It was observed that the claim of the petitioners is based on the strength of exchange deed of the year 1935 and sale deed dated 19.06.1953. Therefore, the claim is based on title and not based on possession. 4. It is argued by Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ family is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in R.S.No.54 (corresponds to old Paimash. No. 145) admeasuring Ac.4.37 cents and also an extent of Ac.2.68 cents in Sy.No.157/2 of the said Village. The entries in the Fair Land Register of Thumadu Village, an extent of Ac.3.26 cents in R.S.No.54 (Paimash.No.145) was classified as patta land, classified as ryotwari land owned by the 1st petitioner’s father and his name was recorded in the said register. Later another extent of Ac.1.30 cents in the 3 same survey number was acquired by the 1st petitioner from one Vaka Adhi Reddy under exchange deed in the year 1935 vide registered document No.1400/1935, dated 11.05.1935 and ever since, the petitioners’ family is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land measuring Ac.4.37 cents as absolute owner in R.S.No.54. 5. It is further contended that the land in Survey No.157/2 admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents of Thumadu Village is concerned, originally the said land was part of Sy.No.84, (Paimash. No.259) which has a total extent of 226.90 acres and later an extent of Ac.18.00 cents was converted as AWD. Considering the possession, cultivation by the petitioners’ family to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents, and that of one Sri Ootla Rangayya in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents, ryotwari patta was granted by Assistant Settlement Officer, Eluru, in favour of Ootla Rangayya in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents, However, the petitioner’s family did not apply for a patta along with Sri Ootla Rangayya, but applied for the same in 1983 under Section 11-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. (for short “the Act, 1948”) 6. (for short “the Act, 1948”) 6. It is contended that the Settlement officer, Nellore, by order dated 30.06.1986 rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta and the same was confirmed by the Director of Settlements and the Commissioner of Appeals. Questioning the said orders, the appellant has approached this Court in W.P.No.2118 of 2005 and the same was allowed on 10.12.2010 setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, and remanded 4 the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the said directions, the order impugned in the writ petition is passed. 7. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and stating that Thumadu village is an Inam land taken over by the Government 10.11.1963. The claim of the petitioners in so far as far it relates to an extent of Ac.4.37 cents in Sy.No.54, is concerned the same is classified as "Village Site Poramboke" and an extent of Ac.2.68 cents in Sy.No.157/2 is classified as "Vagu Poramboke". It is further stated that as regards the possession of the land is concerned that in Ac.4.37 cents in Sy.No.54, there exists a tiled house for storage of tobacco product, Eucalyptus crop (at the relevant point) and a Borewell. It is thus stated that the land was used for residential/Non Agricultural purpose and the same is not a cultivable land and the classification of the land is also show as Village Site Poramboke. Further contended that same was the position even at the time of taking over of the land by the Government on 10.11.1963 in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1948. Thus contends that the Sy.No.54, is not a ryoti land as defined in Section 3(15) and 3(16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908. 8. It is stated that similarly, the land in Sy.No.157/2 is classified as Vagu Poramboke and the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the land in pre and post abolition periods, therefore it does not satisfy the parametres of Section 11-A of the Act, 1948. It is further contended that as per the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 1948, as amended by Act XV of 5 1959, all Porambokes, communal lands, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in the Government free of all encumbrances. Thus pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Considered the rival submissions. 10. This Court while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.No.2118 of 2005, observed as follows: “Thus from the above it is clear that the respondents have not considered the matter in right perspective. May be the lands in the pre-abolition records were mentioned in some others name. What the respondents are supposed to enquire is as to whether the petitioner or his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the property and whether there is any co-relation between the Pimashi 145 and R.S.Nos.54 and 157/2 of Thumada village. Jarugumallu Mandal. The respondents have to examine in detail the documents Exs.P1 to P5 and trace out the title of the predecessor-in-tille of the petilioner.” “Further, there is some force in the contention of the petitioner that the lands in question are ryotwari lands. This is reflected even in the counter filed before this court to say that a part of the land in R.S.Nos.54 and 157/2 of Tumadu village. Jarugumallu Mandal was shown as Ryotwarl land and pattas were in fact granted to some persons. The petitioner has in fact claimed an exchange of the land of Ac.1-30 cents under a deed, dated 27.03.1935, with one Venkata Adi Reddy. This is pre- abolition document. Further, the agreement of sale entered into by the father of the pelilioner and his paternal uncle dated 15.06.1953 also is very close to the abolition period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless and until all these documents are examined in detail as to their nature and the true vendor therein, who was in possession of the property prior to the abolition of the estates, and also as to whether the pimashi No.145 co-relates to survey Nos.54 and 157/2 of Tumadu village, a correct decision cannot be arrived at.” 11. The 2nd respondent, while passing the order in pursuance to the directions of this Court, referred to all the documents submitted by the 6 petitioners and rejected to take into consideration the said documents, observing that they belonged either to the pre-abolition period or did not contain any seal of the estate and in respect of the revenue receipts for the subsequent period since the same are not containing the seal of the authority, he thus observes that the same is not reliable. Further, the Department of Survey and Land Records report was also called for in connection with the present case. However, the authority did not refer to the same. The ryotwari patta granted in favour of Ootla Rangayya was also not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent while rejecting the case of the petitioner. The authority referring to the copy of Fair Land Register submitted by the petitioners, observes that the same is not legible and expresses doubt about the genuineness of the document. In such circumstances, an authority discharging quasi-judicial functions is expected to examine the record maintained in their office to elicit the truth or otherwise of the claim. As observed from the impugned order, the respondent did not discuss it as directed by this Court. The 2nd respondent was directed by this Court to examine the documents (P1 to P5 in W.P. 2118 of 2005) and trace out the title of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to consider the same in terms of the directions of this Court. The respondent is therefore directed to pass orders afresh, in terms of the directions of this court in W.P.No.2118 of 2005, by taking into consideration the material that has already been placed by the writ petitioner and material that may now be placed by the petitioner, and the revenue records and such 7 other records, if any, that are maintained in respect of the subject property at the relevant point of time such as Fair Land Register etc., by giving the petitioner an opportunity to place any material that he may rely upon in support of his contention. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing. 12. The order impugned in the writ petition is accordingly set aside, matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders in terms of the observations made herein above. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:10.03.2025 ANI 8 199 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.18020 of 2020 Date:10.03.2025 ANI