HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.1106 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.9667 of 2005 Dated: 08-02-2011 WRIT APPEAL No.1106 of 2008 Between: The District Collector, Chittoor & another …Appellants AND The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad & others Respondents WRIT PETITION No.9667 of 2005 Between: Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayat, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District Rep. by its Sarpanch N.Malleshwari …Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad & others Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.1106 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.9667 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Since one and the same issue arises for consideration in the appeal as well as in the writ petition, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the writ petitioners i.e. the District Collector, Chittoor and Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 13.2.2008 dismissing W.P.No.6269 of 2005 filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in CCLA’s Reference No.V3/437/2002 dated 24.9.2004 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.Dis.No.3096/1991 dated 3.6.2002 was allowed setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and confirming the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, in S.R.Nos.77/1985, dated 14.6.1985 and S.R.No.49/1986 dated 7.3.1986 granting patta in favour of unofficial respondents. 3. W.P.No.9667 of 2005 is filed by the Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch questioning the order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 24.9.2004 contending that the subject-land is a communal land and stood vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 85(1) of the then A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (Section 80 of the present A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994), as per the Gazette notification dated 03.9.1984 and therefore the second respondent-Inams Deputy Tahsildar erroneously granted Ryotwari Patta to the third respondent and that was rightly set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 3.6.2002. Its case is that the subject- land was declared as communal land and it vested in the Gram Panchayat and therefore unless the said order of the Commissioner is set aside it cannot use the said land for communal purpose and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Facts which are not in dispute have been set out by the learned single Judge in para-2 of the order passed in the writ petition. There is no necessity to reproduce the same once again. The land to an extent of Ac.4-00 under Takid No.464 of Obularajukalva patteda-gunta originally belonged to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, and it granted Saswatha Patta Takid dated 21.11.1940 in favour of one N.Kodanda Ramaiah permitting him to enter the said land and reclaim it and cultivate the same on the kist payable at Rs.10/- per acre per annum. In the Inams enquiry on abolition of Inams under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari), Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act’), the Inams Deputy Tahsildar after conducting due enquiry into the nature of the Inam by notification dated 12.09.1983 issued under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act notified the land to an extent of Ac.1-90 cents in Sy.No.241-3 as a Ryoti land. After issuing such notification, the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar by another notification dated 16.11.1983 notified the same land as ‘Kunta Poramboke’. There is no dispute that after grant of Saswatha Patta vide Takid dated 21.11.1940 by Hathiramji Mutt, the said Kodanda Ramaiah who was cultivating the said land sold an extent of Ac.1-00 under a registered document dated 15.5.1970 and also sold another extent of Ac.1-00 on 19.11.1971 in favour of the father of third respondent namely V.Veerappa. Pursuant to the said sale deeds executed by Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of the father of third respondent, the father of third respondent filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7(1) of the Act and the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, after due enquiry into the claim granted ryotwari patta in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1-60 cents in Sy.No.241- 3 of Tiruchanoor vide S.R.No.77/85/I.D.T.1/83/CGR dated 14.6.1985 and for an extent of Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.241-3 part of Tiruchanoor vide S.R.No.49/86/I.D.T.1/83/CGR dated 7.3.1986 in all measuring Ac.1-90 cents which was notified to be Ryoti land. 5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in which the District Collector filed a petition to implead him as a respondent in the said appeal seeking permission to contest the matter. While the matter was pending, V.Veerappa, the father of third respondent filed W.P.No.11598 of 1994 which was disposed of on 14.12.2000 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal after giving notice to all the parties concerned. Meanwhile, V.Veerappa, father of third respondent filed W.A.No.857 of 2001 and also review W.P.M.P.No.5573 of 2000 in W.P.No.11598 of 1994. The Writ Appeal as well as the review W.P.M.P. were allowed setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional officer in granting stay saying that the very appeal preferred by the District Collector before him is not maintainable. Meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed final orders on 3.6.2002 setting aside the orders of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, dated 14.6.1985 granting ryotwari pattas in favour of Veerappa. Aggrieved by the same, Veerappa filed revision before the Commissioner of Appeals, which was allowed initially by order, dated 22.4.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the District Collector and the Tahsildar filed W.P.No.12625 of 2003 and also a review W.A.M.P.No.3177 of 2002 in W.A.No.857 of 2001. This Court while allowing review W.A.M.P.No.3177 of 2002 disposed of W.P.No.12625 of 2003 and W.A.No.857 of 2001 by an common order, dated 21.7.2004 remitting the matter to the Commissioner of Appeals for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court, the Commissioner of Appeals once again took up the matter and after elaborate consideration, allowed the revision setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and restoring the orders of the Special Tahsildar granting pattas. The learned single Judge after elaborate consideration of the provisions of the Act dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal and the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayat earlier filed a suit O.S.No.826 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tirupati, against V.Veerappa and 2 others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the Gram Panchayat over the suit schedule property of Ac.1.90 cents covered by Sy.No.241-3. On filing an Interlocutory Application, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.4.1997. After dismissal of the suit as withdrawn, the Gram Panchayat filed W.P.No.19600 of 2003 for a writ of mandamus declaring that Inams Deputy Tahsildar and V.Veerappa have no manner of right to interfere with the land measuring Ac.1.90 cents, situated in Sy.No.241/3 within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat under Section 85(1) of the Gram Panchayat Act being a communal land and having been classified as Obula Raju Kunta Poramboke in the notification, dated 16.11.1983 as notified in the Gazette, dated 3.09.1984. The said writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage by one of us (AGR,J) after noticing the orders in W.A.No.857 of 2001 and W.P.No.12625 of 2003, wherein the District Collector obtained interim direction on 1.7.2003, and holding that the remedy of the Gram Panchayat against the alleged illegal interference, if any, by Veerappa, is to file a civil suit against him but the writ petition cannot be entertained. It appears no appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the said writ petition. Only after filing of the writ petition by the District Collector, again the present writ petition is filed by the Gram Panchayat contending that once the property has already been notified as Kunta Poramboke as per the notification issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dated 16.11.1983 the subject-land being communal land stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. 7. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar is entitled to conduct an enquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned persons/institutions. The Section has been incorporated in the impugned order, which need not be repeated once again. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 3, the Tahsildar, after giving the persons or institutions concerned a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence in support of their claim and after examining the relevant documents in possession of the Government has to give his decision in writing in regard to items (i), (ii) and (iii) as detailed in sub-section (i) and shall communicate the decision to the persons or institutions concerned. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar is supposed to enquire—(i) whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land; (ii) whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village; and (iii) whether such inam land is held by any institution. As per the said details, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar after conducting enquiry, notified the subject-land as Ryoti land as per the notification, dated 22.09.1983, which was also notified in the district Gazette on 3.09.1984. Under sub-section (4) of Section 3, if any person or institution is aggrieved by the decision of Tahsildar under sub-section (3), has to file an appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision and on filing such appeal, it is for the Revenue Court to pass appropriate orders after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If no appeal is filed and the order of the Inams Tribunal is set aside by any Revenue Court under sub-section (4) of Section 3, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall attain finality in view of sub-section (5) of Section 3. 8. In the present case, admittedly, neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the District Collector has filed any appeal against the notification of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar notifying the land measuring Ac.1.90 cents covered by Sy.No.241-3 of Tiruchanoor Village as a Ryoti Dry land. The said notification is also supported by the Saswatha Patta granted in favour of Kodanda Ramaiah, the vendor of V.Veerappa, father of third respondent, by proceedings, dated 21.11.1940 permitting him to reclaim the Kunta land. The said Saswatha Patta directing Sri Hathiramji Mutt to deliver possession of the suit land was declared to be true and valid in O.S.No.13 of 1972, by judgment, dated 29.8.1975 by II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati. Once the subject-land was permitted to be reclaimed under patta by the revenue officials as early as in 1940 and after issuing the Saswatha Patta in favour of Kodanda Ramaiah pursuant to the said order, the land was notified as Ryoti land in the Gazette notification dated 12.09.1983. Unless the same is modified in the manner prescribed under the Act by way of filing an appeal, it is not open for the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to notify the very same land as Kunta Poramboke again. The learned Commissioner of Appeals after taking into consideration the above relevant facts has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that he cannot go into the correctness of the notification in a consequential proceedings for grant of patta in favour of heirs of Veerappa i.e. the father of the third respondent in the writ petition, except in the manner provided under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable in the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer as upheld by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition warranting interference by this Court. 9. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of upholding the proceedings of Commissioner of Appeals, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. However, it is open for the writ petitioner-Gram Panchayat to avail the remedies available under law. No order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 08, 2011 TSR