Sanapathi Appalanaidu and 3 others v. Others

Judgment

(Per Mrs. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 10.8.2007 in W.P.No.18968 of 1998. W.P.No.18968 of 1998 was filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer seeking to quash the Judgment in T.A.No.12 of 1986 on the file of the Court of District Judge at Visakhapatnam

12.9.1990. By the said Judgment the learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, and set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam dated 29.7.1986. The facts giving rise to filing of the present Writ Appeal are as under: One Sanapathi Appalanaidu and Sanapathi Appanna filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, under Section 56(1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘Estates Abolition Act, 1948’) seeking to declare them as lawful ryots of the land covered by patta No.7 of Mantripalem village of Chemudu Zamindari. It is claimed by them that the said land is known as Pream Beedu and that the same was in possession of their ancestors. A famine road was laid through the land and compensation was paid to them. They also paid cist to the Estate. When the Estate was taken over by the Government, the lands were surveyed and the name of respondent Nos.2 to 5 were erroneously recorded in the Adangals. It is contended that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were not the ryots and that they have no manner of right over the land. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 resisted the claim of the appellants 1 and 2 contending that the ancestors of Sanapathi Appalanaidu and Sanapathi Appanna, out of a total extent of Ac.49.29 cents, left about Ac.20.00 as fallow in the year 1930. They have not paid cists to the Zamindari. The father of the 2nd respondent approached the Zamindar seeking assignment of the said land and the Zamindar after verification issued proceedings assigning the said land to the father of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the said order, nazarana and rent were paid for Faslis 1345 and 1346. Subsequently, the Zamindar also issued Patta No.26-A. Cists were paid until the Estate was taken over. As per the Land Register, the Government collected ryotwari assessment from the 2nd respondent on behalf of the pattadar. Since the 2nd respondent was not aware of the original assignment in favour of his father, he was paying B-Memo charges as the land was shown as Assessed Waste in the Settlement Fair Adangal. When the respondent Nos.2 to 5 approached the Tahsildar, the said land was assigned in their favour. While searching old records, the 2nd respondent found that the land was originally assigned by the Zamindars in the year 1933. They also found a patta in that regard. Further, in the family partition the said land fell to the share of the 2nd respondent and since then he had been cultivating the land by raising dry crops and planting Casuarina, Eucalyptus etc. According to them, on the notified date, the appellants were not the ryots and the 2nd respondent, who succeeded to the interest of his father in respect of the lands covered by Patta No.26-A, is the lawful ryot. The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, by order dated

29.7.1986 recorded a finding that except a bald statement that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 have been in possession of the land under a patta granted by the Zamindar, no documentary evidence was adduced by them and particularly taking into consideration the statement made by the 1st appellant in his deposition as P.W.1 that father of 2nd respondent has been in possession of the land for the last 40 years, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be declared as the lawful ryots. The Settlement Officer further opined that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 have also failed to prove their case that they are the lawful ryots. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed T.A.No.12 of

1986. On Appeal, the learned District Judge by Judgment dated

12.9.1990 observing that the documents filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 clearly show that the respondents are in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.20.00 cents since long time, even prior to the abolition of the Estate, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer dated 29.7.1986, declared that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the lawful ryots of the land to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents out of the land in Patta No.7 of Mantripalem village. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the 1st respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Parawada Mandal, filed W.P.No.18968 of 1998, contending inter alia that the land to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents bearing Patta No.7, known as Pream Beedu, situated in Mantripalem village, which was classified as poramboke vested in the Government when the Government took over the Estate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, to which respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the appellants made conflicting claims that they have been in possession and enjoyment since 1930. It is further contended that in spite of the fact that the land belongs to the Government, the learned District Judge by Judgment dated 12.9.1990 declared respondent Nos.2 to 5 as lawful ryots of the land. A learned single Judge of this Court by Order

dated 10.8.2007 confirmed the order of the learned District Judge in W.P.No.18968 of 1998. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since admittedly respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 13 have given up their right/benefit under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and sought assignment in their favour admitting that the land is a Government poramboke, they are not entitled to make any claim in respect of subject-matter of the land. It is further contended that when once the land is vested with the Government, every person including the appellants as well as the unofficial respondents and others are entitled for assignment as per Assignment Rules and when once the unofficial respondents admitted is Government poramboke and sought assignment, the claim of the appellants also can be considered for the purpose of assignment. In the writ petition, the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 1st respondent herein, contended in question is a Government poramboke and it was taken over by the Government on

12.1.1951 and that neither the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 14 & 15 have any manner of right over it and they cannot claim to be the lawful ryots. It was further contended that the respondents have encroached upon the land. Further, the claim of respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the Zamindar issued Patta (Cowle) dated 15.9.1936 was disputed since the patta does not bear the seal of the Estate. It was finally contended that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 14 and the appellants are not entitled for patta in respect of the land in question. Before the Settlement Officer, the 1st appellant gave evidence as P.W.1. In his evidence, P.W.1 admitted that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents for the past 40 years. The 2nd respondent gave evidence as R.W.1 and also examined Sakaramantri Abbiraju and Achanta Venkataraju as R.Ws.2 and 3. It is their claim that the father of the 2nd respondent approached the Estate Authorities and applied for patta agreeing to pay nazarana and rent to the Zamindar for Ac.20.00 of land. Accepting the said offer and after receiving nazarana and rent, they were issued a regular lease patta and since then the land was in possession and enjoyment of respondent Nos.2 to 5. They filed patta No.26-A dated 15.9.1936 and cist receipts. It is their claim that the ancestors of the appellants left about Ac.20.00 cents of land out of Ac.49.29 cents in the year 1930 and as they did not pay cist to the Zamindar, the father of the 2nd respondent occupied the land by paying cist and the Zamindar, after verification, assigned the land in favour of the 2nd respondent and subsequent patta was also granted. When the father of the 2nd respondent died in the year 1952, respondent Nos.2 to 5 came to be in possession of the land and have been regularly paying the cist to the Government. The learned single Judge in the order under Appeal opined that the respondents 2 to 5 are in valid possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Noticing the provision under Section 6 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, which contemplates that subject to the provisions of the Act, every ryot now in possession or who shall hereafter be admitted by a landholder to possession of ryoti land situated in the Estate of such landholder shall have a permanent right of occupancy in his holding, the learned single Judge observed that though the Government took over the land in question on

12.1.1951, when the 2nd respondent requested the District Collector not to evict them, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were issued D-Form patta each for an extent of Ac.5.00 cents. The learned single Judge further observed that when the Government took over the land on 12.1.1951, for all practical purposes, the Government itself has become the landholder and when D-Form Pattas were granted to respondent Nos.2 to 5, naturally the Government receives or recovers any kind of payment from them in relation to the land in question. Further, the Government failed to file a suit in a Civil Court within two years from the date of receipt or recovery of any payment for ejection of respondent Nos.2 to 5, the Government shall be deemed to have admitted the respondent Nos.2 to 5 into possession. Thus, observing the learned single Judge held that the learned District Judge is perfectly justified in holding that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the lawful ryots of the property in question. We have carefully gone through the material placed on record. The learned District Judge by Judgment dated 12.9.1990 in T.A.No.12 of 1986 after going through the evidence placed on record, recorded a finding that the documents filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 clearly show that the respondents are in possession of the land measuring Ac.20.00 cents since long time, even prior to the abolition of the Estate. Finding thus, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Settlement Officer dated 29.7.1986 and thereby declared that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the lawful ryots of the land to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents out of the land in Patta No.7 of Mantripalem village. In the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge having regard to the Explanation 4(1) of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 observed that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 (respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition) are deemede to have been admitted by the Government that they are in possession of the land in question and thus held that the learned District Judge is perfectly justified in holding that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition are the lawful ryots in respect of the property in question. The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned District Judge as confirmed by the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition, which is based on the evidence and other material made available on record needs no interference and, accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt.04-2-2008