K.Narasimhulu Naidu v. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13769 OF 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District – dated

20.06.2002 rejecting representation of the petitioners implementation of the ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, vide his order dated 23.01.1974 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein are brothers. It is claimed that their mother Smt. K. Chengmma owned and possessed an extent of Ac.3.50 cents of land situated in Sy.No.5/1 (5/8) of Kayam Village, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District. The Settlement Officer, Nellore, after due enquiry, allowed the application made by Smt. Chengamma under Section 11 (a) of The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and granted a ryotwari patta in her favour by order dated 23.01.1974. Pursuant thereto, a survey was conducted by the Taluk Surveyor and the said Ac.3.50 cents in possession of the petitioners’ mother was demarcated and a rough sketch was prepared. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer, Nellore assigned Sy.No.5/8 to the said land and directed the Tahsildar, Puttur to carry out the entries in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 3.2.1975. In turn, the Tahsildar while sending a detailed report sought permission of the Collector for implementation. However, the Collector failed to respond. In the meanwhile, there was a partition of joint family properties in which the properties in question fell to the share of the petitioners. After several representations made by the petitioners, ultimately a pass book was issued in favour of the 1st petitioner on

1.10.1987 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vadamalpet. However the necessary entries in revenue records were not incorporated. While so, on 3.6.2001, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vadamalpet – the 3rd respondent herein along with the Surveyor entered into the lands of the 1s petitioner so as to measure and demarcate the same into two separate portions and merge his settlement patta land in Sy.No.5/8 with tank poramboke situated in Sy.No.5/1. When the petitioners objected, the 3rd respondent sought to justify his action on the ground that the settlement patta was not implemented the revenue records. Immediately the 1st petitioner made a petition to the District Collector on

15.6.2001 requesting to give permission to the 3rd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Vadamalpet, to implement the settlement patta in the revenue records. Pursuant thereto, as directed by the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a detailed report on 23.7.2001 recommending for implementation of patta as sought by the petitioner. However, the District Collector vide impugned order dated

20.6.2002 rejected the request of the petitioner for implementation of the order of the Settlement Officer relying upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9250 of 2001, dated 14.03.2002. The said order dated

20.06.2002 is under challenge in this writ petition. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the impugned order of rejection without assigning any reasons and wrongly applying the decision in W.P.No.9250 of 2001 which has no application at all to the facts of the present case is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, recommended for implementation of the settlement patta has not been disputed. However, it is contended that since the land in question is shown as tank poramboke in the revenue records of Kayam Village, the District Collector had rightly rejected the request of the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The petitioners in W.P.No.9250 of 2001, which was relied upon by the 1st respondent, approached this Court seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in taking steps to evict them from the land in Sy.No.1024 of Nellimandapalli, Chittoor District, without following due process of law as arbitrary and illegal. It was contended by them that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than three decades and that the respondents were trying to forcibly evict them in spite of the fact that they were collecting the levy as Sivai Zamadar. It was also their case that since the land in their possession forms part of a water tank which became defunct there was no justification for evicting them. In the counter-affidavit, it was pleaded by the respondents that all the encroachers, including the petitioners were given notice of the enquiry and that the petitioners having participated in the enquiry sought 10 days time for vacating the land. This Court, while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court HINCH LAL TIWARI v. KAMALA DEVI wherein it [1] was held that the land classified as water body or poramboke tank whether or not it is defunct should be maintained as a water body or irrigation tank and the land use cannot be changed, rejected the contention of the petitioners therein and dismissed the writ petition. In the instant case, the facts are entirely different. This is a case where the claim of the petitioners is based on a settlement patta granted in favour of their mother long back pursuant to which the land in question has been surveyed and demarcated. After conducting necessary enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report dated 23.7.2001 recommending to implement ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioners dated 15.6.2001 in the light of the recommendations made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the 1st respondent merely relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.9250 of 2001, which has no application at all to the facts of the instant case and rejected the representation of the petitioners. Except extracting the concluding paragraph in W.P.No.9250 of 2001, the 1st respondent failed to assign any reasons in support of his conclusion and appears to have proceeded on an assumption that the land in possession of the petitioners forms part of tank poramboke. The impugned order, dated 15.06.2001, which was passed without application of mind to the facts of the case and without assigning any reasons, on the face of it being arbitrary and illegal, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Till such order is passed, status quo, as ordered by this Court on 19.01.2005 shall be maintained. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.11.2008 [1] (2001) 6 SCC 496