THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20282 OF 2006 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of Acs.20- 00 of land in T.D. No.3072, Inam Patta Survey No.448, R.S. No.5 in Nrusimharayapurapu Agraharam, Narava Vilalge, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary and illegal, and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to disturb his possession over the land otherwise than in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner claims that his father had entered into an agreement of sale on 02-11-1967 with Namburi Ranga Rao, and delivery of possession of the subject lands is said to have followed thereafter. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands eversince. Reference is made to an application made on 05-09-1991 by the widow and son of Namburi Ranga Rao before the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of ryotwari patta for an extent of Acs.65-00 of land inherited by them from late Namburi Ranga Rao. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi is said to have passed an order holding that Smt N.V. Ramanamma, and her adopted son N.S.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao, were entitled to pattas under the provisions of Andhra Inam (Andhra Area) Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) for an extent of Acs.61-10 cents covered by Survey No.5 and Acs.4-50 cents covered by Survey No.6 of Narava village; and they are entitled to have pattas, issued accordingly. 3. The petitioner would refer to certain observations made in the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 09-01-1993 to the effect that the transferees, who had allegedly purchased lands from Namburi Ranga Rao, were also eligible for ryotwari patta under Section 10-B of the Amended Act, 1975 if they came forward to get the sale agreement executed by late N. Ranga Rao, impounded under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. 4. In this context it is necessary to note that the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi dated 09-01-1993 (which contain the observation relied upon by the petitioner) is an order made on an application filed by N.S.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao, son of late N. Ranga Rao, and his mother seeking issue of ryotwari pattas, and not on an application filed by the petitioner herein. N.S.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao is also said to have made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 29-10-1999 to take further action for implementation of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 09-01-1993. 5. While the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam is the appellate authority under the Act, exercise of his powers as an appellate authority is permissible only if the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer is under challenge, and not for implementation of the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer is said to have directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi Mandal to issue ryotwari patta to the applicant, and the six individuals shown in the tabular form which includes the petitioner’s father at Serial No.2. 6. As to how relief could be granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer in favour of the petitioner, when either he or his father did not even choose to make an application either before the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not known. The fact remains that, as on date, neither has the petitioner submitted an application for grant of ryotwari patta nor has he been granted any such patta under the provisions of the Act. His claim, in this writ petition, is to be in possession of the subject land pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 02-11-1967. 7. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it is stated that no rights would flow to the petitioner from the unregistered document of 1967; he had not taken any steps for more than 30 years and, therefore, he had no right over the land. It is also stated that, as per the records, there is no other claim for the lands in Survey Nos.5 and 6 of Narava Village except the claims of Smt. Namburi Venkataramanamma and N.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao for an extent of Acs.65-60 cents of land and, in the absence of a ryotwari patta being granted, no person can claim any right or title over inam lands after the lands are notified under Section 3 of the Act; all inam lands, other than those for which ryotwari pattas were granted, vest with the Government; and, therefore, all remaining lands in R.S. No.5 admeasuring Acs.159-95 cents of Narava Village vest with the Government. 8. Respondent No.3 would further state that the contention of the petitioner that he has been in possession of the subject land in R.S. No.5 is incorrect and contrary to the records; on the application of respondent No.5, requesting for allottment of land, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam had allotted an extent of Acs.159-95 cents of land situated at Narava Village, and possession of the said land had been handedover to respondent No.5 on 25-10-2005; in view of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court, the activity of development of Visakha Special Economic Industrial Zone has been stalled; and the Government had only allotted land vested in it, excluding the claim for which patta was granted to Smt. Namburi Venkata Ramanamma and N.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao for an extent Acs.65-60 cents of land. Respondent No.3 would assert that, since the petitioner does not have any right over the subject land as the lands of the Government were already alienated in favour of respondent No.5 excluding the land claimed by Smt. N. Venkata Ramanamma and N.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao, the relief sought for ought not to be granted. 9. Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would strongly rely on the observations made in the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 09-01-1993, and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29-11-1999, in support of his submission that, since the authorities had recognized the factum of the petitioner’s father having entered into an agreement of sale dated 02- 11-1967 with the original inamdars and as they were in possession of the land prior to coming into force of the Amended Act, 1975, they were entitled, as of right, for grant of ryotwari patta, and consequently to become owners of the subject land. He would further state that, till such patta is granted and as the petitioner’s possession over the land in question is not in dispute, the State ought not be permitted to act arbitrarily to dispossess a person, who has been in a longstanding possession of the lands for which he is entitled to grant of ryotwari patta. Learned counsel would rely on an order of this Court in K. ADILAKSHMI v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & OTHERS (judgment in W.P. No.4977 of 2006 dated 08-09-2006). 10. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would draw attention of this Court to the averments in the counter affidavit in support of his submission that, since all lands vested in the Government, other than those for which ryotwari pattas were granted, the Government was justified in alienating land in favour of respondent No.5 for promotion of industrial activities in Visakhapatnam. Learned Government Pleader would dispute the petitioner’s claim to be in possession of the land in question. 11. As noted hereinabove it is evident that neither the petitioner nor his father had made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of ryotwari patta. Certain observations made in the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 09-01-1993, and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29-11-1999, which are applications for grant of ryotwari pata and an application for implementation of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer made by N.S.V.S. Ramakrsihna Rao, are relied upon. It is only if an application is made under the Act, pursuant to which a ryotwari patta is granted by the competent authority, would such a pattedar be entitled to claim ownership over the land in question, and all other lands for which no such pattas are granted would vest in the State. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim ownership over the land as no application has been made by him under the provisions of the Act, much less a ryotwari patta having been granted in his favour. 12. The question which remains for consideration is of possession. While the petitioner would assert that he is in possession of the land, respondent No.3, in his counter, would dispute this fact. In W.P. No.4977 of 2006 this Court had observed that it would be appropriate for the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner therein, if she is in possession, before she is dispossessed, and it was also open to the respondents therein to initiate appropriate action for acquiring the land, if the petitioner or her vendors were already granted ryotwari pattas. It is not even the case of the petitioner herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that he has made an application for grant of ryotwari patta, let alone a ryotwari patta having been granted in his favour. In such circumstances reliance placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4977 of 2006 dated 08-09-2006 is misplaced. 13. It is wholly inappropriate for this Court to adjudicate disputed questions of possession in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court, in this regard. 14. Leaving it open to the petitioner to do so, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J January 20, 2011. PV/MR