THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6350 of 2010 April 16, 2010 Between: V.Prasanth, S/o.V.Chandrasekhar Reddy … Petitioner And The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6350 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.0.68 in survey No.285/2B and an extent of Acs.1.32 in survey No.285/5 of Chiguruvada North Kandriga Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal in Chittoor District under registered sale deed dated 03.8.1995 from Archakam Srinivasa Narasimha Dikshitulu. Petitioner’s vendor admittedly obtained ryotwari patta under Section 15(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Estate Abolition Act), in proceedings S.R.4/15(1)/77, dated 02.1.1982 and the same was implemented by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 11.2.1982. He obtained Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed from second respondent. The petitioner made application to second respondent for obtaining extracts of adangals (revenue records) for obtaining a loan from the Bank. The second respondent informed that in proceedings S.R.No.20/11(a)/87, dated 01.9.2009 relating to late G.Suseelamma, W/o.Muniramaiah, the entire subdivisions in survey No.285 were cancelled. On further probe, petitioner was supplied photocopies of the order dated 01.9.2009 passed by first respondent. Therefore the petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging the said order of Joint Collector. Petitioner contends that under the Estate Abolition Act, first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an order which is the effect of nullifying the pattas granted under the said Act. Any cancellation of all the subdivisions without notice to patta holders or derivative title holders is violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned action amounts to review of earlier order and there is no such power to review the order. The counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit. The Assistant Government Pleader opposes the writ petition contending that entire survey number was found to be classified as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke and, therefore, grant of patta is prohibited. This Court has been taken through the order of first respondent dated 01.9.2009. The said authority has considered various provisions of Estate Abolition Act as well as Section 3(16)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 (Estates Land Act), and came to the conclusion that the land classified as river poramboke of Swarnamukhi River cannot be assigned as patta land. Therefore the first respondent cancelled all the subdivisions in survey No.285, directed that the land admeasuring Acs.15.70 remains in survey No.285, and further directed second respondent to take action as per the Andhra Pradesh Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884. Having regard to Section 13(b) of the Estates Abolition Act and the Full Bench decision in P.Chanchulakshamma v Estates Abolition Tribunal[1], this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. 13. Lands in inam estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta:- In the case of an inam estate, the landholder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of – (a) omitted… (b) (i) All lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder, by inheritance or succession under a will, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the date of such acquisition or the 1st day of July, 1945, whichever is later and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from such later date; (ii) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July, 1945, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date; (iii) all lands (not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, clause (16), sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estate Land Act, or (iii) forest lands which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 1st day of July, 1945, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date. (emphasis supplied) In P.Chenchulakshamma (supra), this Court considered the issue of grant of patta, which is specifically prohibited by the Estates Land Act and the provisions of Estates Abolition Act. While holding that the grant of patta under Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act is prohibited in respect of categories of land as enumerated in Section 13(b)(iii) of Estates Abolition Act, the Full Bench laid down as under. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion; Lanka Lands, lands of the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, and forest lands are excluded from the purview of Section 13(b) (iii) of the Abolition Act and no ryotwari pattas could be granted to the landholder under that provision in respect of those lands. The mere non-user of the communal lands for the purposes for which they were intended and set apart, as on the date of the application of the Abolition Act to the estate is not material and does not alter their communal character, if, by the time the Abolition Act came to be applied to the estate in which they are situate, they ere lands coming within the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act. Despite the disuse to which they have fallen and despite the other users they have been unauthorisedly and illegally put to they would nonetheless continue to be lands belonging to the category specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act in the absence of any order under Section 20-A (1)(b) of the Estates Land Act. Section 3(16) of Estates Land Act defines “Ryoti land” and Section 3(b) of Estates Abolition Act determines and vests the entire estate, non-ryoti lands, waste lands, quarries, rivers, streams etc., in the State/ Government. Therefore a ryotwari patta cannot be granted in respect of a land which is river bed. While dealing with another claim, if the Joint Collector cancelled all the subdivisions and as a coincidence it affects the rights acquired by the petitioner under a registered document, the same does not in any manner vitiated the order of the Joint Collector. Be it noted, under Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any transfer opposed to nature of the interest affected thereby or for unlawful object or consideration within the meaning of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, is prohibited. The transfer of river bed by anybody is certainly unlawful and is void under law. Therefore, even if a notice was not issued, the same does not matter. Petitioner’s remedy is only to file a suit against the vendor invoking indemnity clause in the sale deed. The submission that the first respondent has no jurisdiction is misconceived. Indisputably first respondent is the Settlement Officer and while granting patta, he has to act within four corners of Estates Land Act, Estates Abolition Act and other Revenue laws. If the patta is denied or subdivision in field (S.No.) is cancelled, on the ground that the land is river bed, it is a valid order and does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April , 2010 YS [1] AIR 1972 AP 1 (FB) : 1971(2) An WR 363