Sathivada Malleswara Rao and five others v. The Tahsildar, Ponduru and four others

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash orders dated 27-3-1985, 1-2-1997 and 2- 9-2000 passed by respondents 2,4 and 5 respectively. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant a ryotwari pattas in their favour under Section 11-a of the Estates Abolition Act, 1947 in respect of Ac.1.76 cents in R.S.No.94, covered by O.S.No.223/7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 of Pathuru village, Etcherla Perla Annapurnamma Estate of Shermohammdpuram.

Heard Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the record. Under a purported Nazarana dated 23-8- 1940, the petitioners claimed their title to the above-mentioned property. They also filed Ex.P.2 receipts before respondent No.2-the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. Having considered the said documents filed by the petitioners in support of their claim that as on the relevant date, viz., 1-7-1945, they were in possession and enjoyment of the above- mentioned property, respondent No.2 rejected the petitioners’ claim on two grounds, namely, that the purported document of title was a receipt for Nazarana dated 23-8-1940 and no patta granted by the erstwhile land holder was filed before him; and that R.S.No.94 consists of seven Sub-divisions, out of which some of them were noted in the M.D.R. as poramboke lands and in respect of some sub-divisions ryotwari pattas were granted favour Jarugulla Daleppadu, Rajappadu, Suravarapu Gannaiah etc., and it is not clear from the claim of the petitioners as to which sub-division of R.S.No.94 the claim relates to.

He also observed that the petitioners failed to explain as to on the strength of which documentary evidence they were inducted into possession. He further held that the petitioners failed to prove that they are in continuous possession of land from 1-7-1945 upto 12-1-1951, the date on which the Estate was taken over by the Government; and that out of the land revenue receipts filed by the petitioners, two of them are in manuscript and unless they are proved, they cannot be admitted in evidence. While dealing with receipts dated 29-3-1948 and 30-6-1943, he held that they do not contain the Original Survey Numbers and, hence, it is not possible to know whether they relate to the scheduled land or not. The said order was confirmed by respondents 4 and 5 in the appeal and revision respectively. Though at the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners made strenuous efforts to set aside the above mentioned orders, having carefully considered the record, I have not felt persuaded to do so.