*THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR +WRIT APPEAL Nos.914 AND 958 OF 2002 %30-09-2008 #The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam. … Appellant Vs. $ Kanchubriki Parvathamma and others. … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ! Counsel for appellants: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for respondents : M/s.C.KODANDA RAM FOR R1 TO 3 ? CASES REFERRED : 1. 1971 ANDHRA WEEKLY REPORTER – 2 – 193 2. 1973 ALT 246 3. 1970 APLJ 147 4. 1969 APLJ 64 5. 1968(1) ALT NRC 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.914 AND 958 OF 2002 WRIT APPEAL NO.914 OF 2002: (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/01/2002 in WP NO : 22862 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Kanchubriki Parvathamma, W/o.Rama Rao, R/o.Isakathota, D.No.54-2-27,Visakhapatnam. 2 Kanchubriki Rama Rao, S/o.Peda Mutyalu, R/o.Isakathota, D.No.54-2-27,Visakhapatnam. 3 Kanchubriki Sanyasi, S/o.Late Appalaswamy, R/o.Isakathota, D.No.54-2-20,Visakhapatnam. 4 Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.C.KODANDA RAM FOR R1 TO 3 WRIT APPEAL No.958 of 2002: (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/01/2002 in WP NO : 4038 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer (Rural), Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1. Kanchubariki Pedamuthyalu, S/o.Late Appalaswamy, R/o.Isakathota,Visakhapatnam. Rep.by their G.P.A.Holder Sri SVV.Satyanarayana Rao, S/o.Bhujanga Rao, D.No.4-21-27,Kagithalavari Street Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. 2. Kanchubariki Rama rao S/o.Peda Mutyalu, R/o.Isakathota,Visakhapatnam, Rep.by their G.P.A.Holder Sri SVV.Satyanarayana Rao, S/o.Bhujanga Rao, D.No.4-21-27, Kagithalavari Street Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. 3 Kanchubariki Parvathamma, W/o.Rama Rao, R/o.Isakathota,Visakhapatnam. Rep.by their G.P.A.Holder Sri SVV.Satyanarayana Rao, S/o.Bhujanga Rao, D.No.4-21-27, Kagithalavari Street Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.C.KODANDA RAM FOR R1 TO 3 The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.914 AND 958 OF 2002 C O M M O N O R D E R (Per Mr.Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) These two writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th January, 2002 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.22862 of 2001 and 4038 of 2000. Writ Appeal No.914 of 2002 is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam, the petitioner in W.P.No.22862 of 2001, while Writ Appeal No.958 of 2002 is ﬁled by the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (Rural), Visakhapatnam, - the respondents in W.P.No.4038 of 2000. The Petitioners in W.P.No.4038 of 2000, being the Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.22862 of 2001, are the Respondents before us in both the appeals. In addition, the Commissioner of Appeals, Oﬃce of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.22862 of 2001 is arrayed as Respondent No.4 in W.A.No.914 of 2002. By the common order dated 4th January, 2002, the learned Judge allowed W.P.No.4038 of 2000, directing the respondents therein to mutate the names of the Writ Petitioners in the revenue records, giving eﬀect to the patta granted to their ancestors in the year 1959 and dismissed W.P.No.22862 of 2001 ﬁled by the authorities challenging the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, Oﬃce of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in proceedings No.P1/1681/2000, dated 10.05.2001, being an order passed in connection with the same patta.. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) and Sri C.Kodandaram, counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ appeals. Firstly, we propose to take up W.A.No.958 of 2000 arising out of W.P.No.4038 of 2000. The case of the Respondents 1 to 3, being the petitioners in the said writ petition, was that they are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents covered by R.S.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam, claiming title and ownership under Patta No.85. The said land is said to have been carved out of old Sy.No.20 of Chinagadila Village, which was assigned by the erstwhile Rajah of Vizianagaram during the years 1911 to 1913. It is their case that their common ancestors, viz., Kanchurbariki Pothi alias Muthigadu and others were inducted into possession of the said lands under the said orders of assignment. As no patta was initially communicated to them, they ﬁled an application under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of ryotwari patta. It is stated that in the course of the Section 11(a) proceedings, it was revealed that the patta in respect of the subject lands was granted to their ancestors long ago and accordingly they, having obtained certiﬁed copies of the same, applied for withdrawal of their petition under Section 11(a) of the Act. In this regard, they have also stated that the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, passed a detailed order dated 30.10.1999 holding that the patta was validly granted in their favour long ago and that they were in possession of the subject property. Whether the ﬁndings in the said order dated 30.10.1999 would enure to their beneﬁt, in view of the fact that the said Order culminated in the withdrawal of the petition under Section 11(a) of the Act, will be dealt with separately hereinafter. Continuing with the narration of the facts as reﬂected in the respondents 1 to 3/writ petitioners’ aﬃdavit, it is stated that thereafter they made several applications, being applications dated 10.11.1997, 06.09.1999, 05.01.2000 and 14.01.2000 to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records. It is their complaint that in spite of the voluminous evidence, including the Patta No.85 granted in their favour, establishing their title and possession, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) failed to carry out the mutation of their names in the revenue records, constraining them to approach this Court by way of the writ petition. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit in the said Writ Petition stating to the following effect: Chinagadila Village of Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal was a Zamindari Estate of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Samsthanam, which was notiﬁed and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. The estate is said to have been notiﬁed on 07.09.1949 and the settlement rates were said to have been introduced on 01.07.1959. The subject lands situated in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents, corresponding to Old Sy.No.20/2 Part of Chinagadila Village, form part of the said estate and are classiﬁed as Assessed Waste Dry as per the revenue records. It is admitted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) that during the course of the Section 11(a) enquiry initiated by the Respondents 1 to 3 herein, his predecessor-in-oﬃce had produced a bunch of rough pattas, including Rough Patta Nos.84, 85 and 77 pertaining to the Respondents 1 to 3’s predecessors-in- title and their claim over the land in Sy.Nos.140/1 to 140/12. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) attacked the ﬁndings recorded in the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) also attacked the validity and genuineness of the rough patta bearing No.85 on various grounds. He stated that the ancestors of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein were in fact granted ryotwari pattas for their holding in respect of old Sy.No.20/4 corresponding to R.S.Nos.140/1, 140/3 and 140/2 under the Rough Pattas bearing Nos.84 and 77 respectively. According to him, the Respondents 1 to 3’s ancestors were not entitled to any other holding in respect of the balance lands in Old Sy.No.20 corresponding to R.S.Nos.140/4 to 140/12. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) claims that the ancestors of the Respondents 1 to 3, and thereafter, the Respondents 1 to 3 have been in possession of the subject lands as encroachers. This encroachment is said to have been made by them in the year 1958. He also made reference to the Revision ﬁled by him against the order dated 30.10.1999, before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, which was said to be pending as on the date of ﬁling of the W.P.No.4038 of 2000, and accordingly he stated that the Respondents 1 to 3 herein were not entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of Government land. As stated supra, the order of the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, dated 30.10.1999 passed on the application of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein under Section 11(a) of the Act culminated in the withdrawal of the petition. However, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, chose to pass a detailed and lengthy order recording various ﬁndings before concluding that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents 1 to 3 herein cannot therefore seek to place any reliance upon or draw support from the ﬁndings recorded in the said order. We are of the considered opinion that the ﬁndings in such an order have no binding eﬀect and do not have any value whatsoever in law. Be that as it may, the said order throws valuable light on various documents and material, which were produced by the authorities themselves during the course of the enquiry, that have a bearing on the present case. It is to be noticed that the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed land revenue receipts dating back to the year 1917 and extending upto 1966 in evidence of their continued possession over the lands. They also produced the copy of the Patta No.38 granted by the Rajah of Vizianagaram in favour of their ancestors. It appears that the survey number is not mentioned in the land revenue receipts produced by the respondents 1 to 3, which only make reference to Patta No.38. Similarly, the details of the land granted under Patta No.38 were also found to be illegible. However, the copy of the ‘A’ Register of Chinagadila Village produced by the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), reﬂects the name of Kanchurbariki Pothi, the ancestor of the respondents 1 to 3, as against the extent of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.20/3, while the ‘A’ Register for the Fasli Year 1350, i.e. the year 1940, reﬂected his name as against the extent of land admeasuring Ac.1-38 cents in Sy.No.20/4. Similar is the entry in the land register. The Settlement Fair Adangal reﬂects the name of Kanchubariki people only against the land in R.S.Nos.140/1, 140/2, 140/3; while the lands in R.S.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 are shown as ‘Banjar’ lands i.e. Government Lands. The Adangals for Fasli Years 1355 and 1363 i.e., 1945 and 1953, show that part of the land covered by Sy.No.20/2 is under the encroachment of the forefathers of the respondents 1 to 3. Similarly, the Settlement Register in Form-VIII which is said to have been prepared during the conduct of settlement operations and was ﬁnalized in 1958 shows that the land covered by Sy.No.20/2 Part is under the encroachment of the respondents 1 to 3’s family and the age of the encroachment is noted as an old one, evidenced by cultivation of dry crops. The recent Adangal for Fasli Year 1389 i.e. 1979 also reﬂects the same position, inasmuch as the land in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 is shown to be under the encroachment of Kanchubariki family, duly noting the same to be an old encroachment. The Re-survey and Settlement Register of Chinagadila Village also speaks to the eﬀect that the land in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 was carved out from old Sy.No.20/2 and that the land in the said survey numbers was under the encroachment of the Kanchubariki family. The encroached extent is stated to be Ac.4-28 cents, which tallies with the extent claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the present proceedings. The above records reﬂect the possession of the ancestors of Respondents 1 to 3 over the subject lands, though the nature of the same is indicated to be an encroachment in some of the records. This aspect seems to have been put to rest by the issue of a rough patta as stated hereunder. The Authorities also produced the Rough Patta Register in the course of the Section 11(a) enquiry, wherein the rough pattas bearing Nos.77, 84 and 85 were found, relating to the lands in Sy.Nos.140/1 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village. The rough pattas bearing Nos.84 and 77 pertain to the lands in Sy.Nos.140/1 to 140/3 and are admitted to be genuine and valid by the authorities. Thereby, the claim of the Respondents 1 to 3 over those lands was substantiated. The rough patta No.85 is with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 and stood in the names of the respondents 1 to 3’s ancestors. It is on the basis of this rough patta that the respondents 1 to 3 herein, having obtained certiﬁed copies thereof, withdrew their petition ﬁled under Section 11(a) of the Act. The order dated 30.10.1999 also evidences the fact that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), contested this move on their part by contending that the said rough patta was not genuine and that it was a manipulated and fake one. However, the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, recorded in his order dated 30.10.1999 that he did not have the jurisdiction to examine the rough patta issued by an equivalent authority and that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) had an option to prefer an appeal before the Director and Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. With the said observation, the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, dismissed as withdrawn the petition ﬁled under Section 11(a) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that against this order, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), preferred a Revision under Section 5(2) of the Act before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and by an order dated 15.11.2000, the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, entertained the Revision, overruling the contention raised by the respondents 1 to 3 herein with regard to its maintainability. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 1 to 3 preferred a Revision before the Commissioner of Appeals, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under Section 7(d) of the Act, and by an order dated 10.05.2001 the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the Revision Petition holding that the Director of Settlements erred in entertaining the Revision Petition ﬁled under Section 5(2) of the Act. The said proceedings are the subject matter of the other Writ Appeal, being Writ Appeal No.914 of 2002, and will be dealt with separately hereinafter. In so far as the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 over the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village, basing upon the rough patta No.85, is concerned, it is relevant to note that the authorities themselves admit the genuineness of the rough pattas bearing Nos.77 and 84, where under the respondents 1 to 3 laid claim to the land in Sy.Nos.140/1 to 140/3. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 herein were paid the land acquisition compensation in respect of the land in these survey numbers when the same was acquired for a public purpose. It is therefore to be examined as to how far the claim of the authorities that rough patta No.85 alone is a fake and manipulated is tenable, once they accept the genuineness of the other two rough pattas, viz., Rough Patta Nos.77 and 84. All the more so, when they have not chosen to initiate any steps whatsoever to cancel the said rough patta or get it declared a nullity The learned Government Pleader contended that the respondents 1 to 3 were not entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records basing upon the rough patta. According to him, the rough patta is not a document of title and in the light of the fact that separate proceedings were initiated in the form of a Revision Petition for examining the validity of this rough patta, their prayer for mutation cannot be entertained. However, as noted above, the Revision Petition ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) stood dismissed under the Order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 10.05.2001. This argument is therefore no longer available to the learned Government Pleader, subject to our consideration of the validity of the Order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in the other Writ Appeal, being Writ Appeal No.914 of 2002. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 herein, on the other hand, argued that in the light of the rough pattas granted as long back as in the year 1959, it was not open to the authorities to claim that the respondents 1 to 3 did not have title and possession over the subject lands. They must accordingly be recognized as the lawful and valid titleholders over the property, he contends, and carrying out mutation in their favour in the revenue records would be a facet of their lawful ownership and possession. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R.ELAMALAI CHETTY V/s. R.RATHNAVELU CHETTY ALIAS RATNA CHETTY[1] is relied upon in connection with the value and status of rough pattas. In the said case, the Division Bench was concerned with the question as to whether the rough patta in that case was one issued under Section 11 of the Act. The said judgment evidences the fact that for carrying out the ryotwari settlement of an estate under Section 22 of the Act, the settlement authorities were in the practice of following the old procedure prescribed in the Manual of Instructions for conducting resettlement in the Madras Presidency, issued in the year 1951. A copy of the said Manual had been placed before the Court in that case. The Division Bench, after a comprehensive analysis of the procedure laid down in the said Manual, recorded that after rough pattas were issued under the provisions thereof, a hearing would be conducted upon the objections raised and that the said rough patta hearing was to be conducted atleast three weeks after the issuance of the rough pattas. After hearing such objections, orders were to be passed and communicated to all the parties concerned. Fair accounts were to be prepared carrying out the changes in the land register and the rough chitta, on the basis of such orders. The fair accounts were then to be sent to the revenue department for preparation of the resettlement register. Basing upon this analysis, the Division Bench held that the rough patta issued under the said Manual is not one issued under Section 11 of the Act and is therefore, not a document of title or one constituting evidence of title. The Bench held that it is only a step taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations and it was not envisaged under the said regulations that after hearing of objections, a regular patta would be granted. The entire process only enabled the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough chitta, and for preparation of the resettlement register. On the facts of that case, the Division Bench held that the patta therein had not been granted under Section 11 of the Act, and accordingly, the rough patta granted in that case did not have the eﬀect of conferring exclusive title upon the patta holder. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed rules, in exercise of its rule making power under Section 67(2)(d) of the Act, under G.O.Ms.No.36, Revenue, dated 21.11.1956. Under the said rules, a time frame was stipulated with regard to the limitation for ﬁling revision petitions against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Oﬃcer under Section 11 of the Act. A reference is made therein to the conduct of rough patta objections hearing under the old procedure. Therefore, though there is no mention in Section 11 of the Act with regard to grant of a rough patta, the statutory rules framed under Section 67 as aforestated, recognize and validate the practice adopted under the old procedure with regard to the grant of rough pattas, by providing a revisional remedy against the same. It is pertinent to note that under Section 22(2) of the Act, the Settlement Oﬃcer while notifying the ryotwari settlement of the estate, is required to embody the principles adopted in making the ryotwari settlement, including the rate of assessment set out in the resettlement notiﬁcation. It is therefore manifest that the old procedure with regard to grant of rough pattas for the purpose of ﬁnalizing the resettlement register has been assimilated into the procedure to be followed under the Act, be it under Section 11 or Section 22. In the present case, the notiﬁcation in respect of the settlement rates is said to have been introduced on 01.07.1959, as per the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled in W.P.No.4038 of 2000. This notiﬁcation is obviously one under Section 22 of the Act. The rough patta relied upon by the respondents 1 to 3, being rough patta No.85, and the rough pattas recognized by the authorities, being rough patta Nos.77 and 84, appear to have been issued in June, 1959, i.e., just prior to the issuance of the notiﬁcation under Section 22 in July, 1959. This fact also lends credibility to all the rough pattas aforestated. The judgment in R.ELAMALAI CHETTY’s case (1 supra) turned upon the facts of that case and the ﬁnding of the Division Bench that the rough patta relied upon therein was not connected to Section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, in the present case the facts as narrated herein above, clearly show a link between the rough pattas granted to the ancestors of the respondents 1 to 3 and the steps taken under the Act. Therefore, the rough patta in the present case cannot be said to be unconnected with Section 11 of the Act. All the more so, in the light of the rules framed by the Government in recognition of rough pattas in connection with Section 11 of the Act. Further, another issue to be considered by us is as to whether it is open to the authorities to seek to unsettle the settled position, insofar as the rough patta granted as long as back in the year 1959 is concerned, and at that, in the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 3. It is also to be noticed that respondents 1 to 3, when they ﬁled W.P.No.4038 of 2000, only sought mutation of their names in the revenue records and did not seek issuance of a rytowari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. In the present case, we are only called upon to determine as to whether the rough patta No.85, which remained undisturbed all these years forms a suﬃcient basis for the request of the respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands. Keeping in view the fact that the possession of respondents 1 to 3 over the subject lands is not denied and the rough patta No.85 is evidence of the recognition of this fact by the authorities, we have no doubt that the answer to this query should be in the aﬃrmative. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in R.ELAMALAI CHETTY’s case (1 supra) is of no avail to the authorities. The judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court i n PENTA APPALA NAIDU V/s. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD [2] is also placed before