IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10431 of 1997 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli, Vishakapatnam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Budda Manikyam, W/o Apparao, Hindu, R/o Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam Dist. 2 Budda Satyanarayanamma, W/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam Dist. 3 Budda Satyavathi Jagadeeswara Rao, S/o Apparao,Hindu, R/o Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam Dist. ` 4 Budda Veera Venkata Nooka Satya Tatunaidu, S/o Apparao,Hindu, R/o Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam Dist., 5 The District Judge, Vishakapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction, Particularly a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari, calling for the records Relating to the judgment in Tribunal Appeal No.1/89 and I.A.No.650/94 dt.7-8-95 on the ﬁle of the Court of District Judge, Vishakapatnam, 5th Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and violative of provisions of Estate Abolition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 10431 OF 1997 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgment dated 7.8.1995 in Tribunal Appeal No. 1 of 1989 and I.A. No. 650 of 1994 on the ﬁle of District Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the Order dated 29-10-1988 passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam was reversed, and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents 1 to 4 herein ﬁled the said appeal before the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam in S.R. (1) 2/87 Vsp. Dated 29.10.1988. Initially, the respondents 1 to 4 herein ﬁled an application under Section 56(1) of the A.P. Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1940 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam seeking to declare them as lawful ryots of the petition schedule land (for short, ‘the land’) situate within the revenue limits of Koduru village of Anakapalli Mandal. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 herein that Koduru village of Anakapalli mandal was notiﬁed under Section 1 (4) of the Estate Abolition Act and was taken over by the Collector, Visakhapatnam on 7.9.1949. The settlement rates were also introduced in the village with eﬀect from 1.7.1959. According to respondents 1 to 4, the suit land originally belonged to Senapathi family, who got occupancy rights in the suit land. They sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 18.4.1899 to one D. Thammayya and others. The said Thammayya’s son Venkateswarlu and others in turn sold the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 25.2.1919 to Kaderisetti people. They enjoyed it for some time personally cultivating it. Later, they leased out the suit land to Senapathi family. Later some disputes arose between them with regard to the tenancy rights. Kedarisetti family obtained a registered surrender deed dated 20.9.1965 for the suit land from Senapathi family. Ever since they have been personally cultivating the same. Subsequently, Kedarisetti family sold the suit land to the 1st respondent – Budha Manikyam and Bongarala Venkata Ratnam for a sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 2.9.1968. Both of them cultivated the same for some time. The said B. Venkata Ratnam sold her half share to the respondents 2 to 4, namely, Buddeda Satyanarayanamma, Budda Satyavaraha Jagadeeswara Rao and Budda Veera Venkata Nooka Satya Tatunaidu, who are related to each other. Ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary land revenue. While so, when Maddila family attempted to trespass into the suit land, the respondents 1 to 4 ﬁled a suit in O.S. 324 of 1980 on the ﬁle of learned District Munsif, Anakapalli for injunction and the said suit was decreed. Thus, according to respondents 1 to 4, they are the ryots within the deﬁnition of ‘Ryot’ as deﬁned under the A.P. (AA) Estates Land Act. It is the further case of respondents 1 to 4 herein that even otherwise they are entitled for a patta and that the respondents 1 to 16 in the application are the henchmen of the Sarpanch of Koduru Gram Panchayat and they are openly proclaiming that they are entitled to patta and that they are the ryots of the suit land and that the 17th respondent in the application is trying to hold weekly shandies in the suit land at the instigation of the Sarpanch and when they approached the M.R.O. i.e. the petitioner herein for necessary relief, he asked them to obtain declaration from the Settlement Oﬃcer that they are the ryots and he further stated that in the revenue records the suit land is noted as ‘poramboke’. According to the respondents 1 to 4 herein the said classiﬁcation is wrong and that the ryotwari passbooks in respect of the suit land were granted by the M.R.O. in their favour. However, the learned Settlement Oﬃcer held that the claim of the petitioners – respondents 1 to 4 herein as lawful ryots of the schedule land is not maintainable under Section 56(1) of the Act and accordingly dismissed the petition ﬁled by them. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer, the respondents 1 to 4 herein carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned District Judge, on considering the evidence placed before the Settlement Oﬃcer as well as before him, came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 4 herein and their predecessors-in-interest cultivated the suit land both as on the date of notification and after the notiﬁcation; that the documentary evidence ﬁled before him discloses that for several years the respondents 1 to 4 herein cultivated the suit land and, therefore, they are entitled to issuance of patta. Thus, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal directing the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam to issue ryotwari pattas to the suit land in favour of the petitioners – respondents 1 to 4 herein, against which the present writ petition is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the petitioner, that in view of the fact that the claimants’ predecessors have not acquired any right of occupancy as tenants with regard to the subject lands, the Settlement Oﬃcer rightly dismissed the claim of respondents 1 to 4 herein, to declare them as lawful ryots of the schedule land, as not maintainable under Section 56 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. However, without considering the material available on record in proper perspective, the learned District Judge, in Tribunal Appeal No. 1 of 1989 and I.A. No. 650 of 1994 held that the appellants – respondents 1 to 4 herein are entitled for issuance of pattas and directed the Settlement Oﬁcer, Visakhapatnam to issue ryotwari pattas to them in respect of the suit land, which is arbitrary and illegal. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the application of the predecessors of respondents 1 to 4, seeking pattas, had been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Oﬃcer, Anakapalli vide his orders dated 30.6.1958 holding that Senapathy Satyanarayana cannot be deemed to have been admitted into the possession of the land by the land holder before the Estate was taken over; that there is no material to show that the predecessors of the respondents 1 to 4 were lawfully inducted into the possession prior to the notiﬁed date under the Estates Abolition Act. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petition under Section 56 of the Estates Abolition Act is not maintainable, as no other person, except respondents 1 to 4, claims patta on the basis of the tenancy and that the Tribunal, overlooking the fact that the request of the predecessors of respondents 1 to 4 seeking patta was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Oﬃcer dated 30.6.1958, has come to a conclusion that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled for pattas; that during the settlement operations, the schedule lands were treated as ‘assessed waste dry and assessed waste wet’ respectively; that the respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to any patta and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 1989, dated 7.8.1995 is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it is strenuously contended by Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that the Settlement Court as also the Appellate Tribunal gave a ﬁnding that the lands are inam lands and Koduru village was notiﬁed under the Estates Abolition Act. No material is placed in support of the contention raised for the ﬁrst time by the petitioner that D-Form pattas granted were subsequently cancelled and that no dates as to when the D-Form pattas were cancelled are also not forthcoming and a vague explanation is given that the record is not available. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Appellate Tribunal has considered each and every aspect with reference to the evidence available on record and rightly held that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled for issuance of ryotwari pattas in respect of the suit land and the said order passed by the Appellate Tribunal needs no interference. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by both the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and perused the entire material made available on record. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the petition ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4 u/s 56 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act is not maintainable, this Court is not in agreement with the said contention for the reason that apparently there is a dispute between respondents 1 to 4, on one hand, and Y. Appanna and 15 others, on the other hand, and thus the same falls clearly under the provisions of Section 56 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act. The learned District Judge dealt with this aspect at length and rightly came to the conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the petition ﬁled by the claimants under Section 56 (1) of the Act is maintainable. In support of their claim, before the Settlement Oﬃcer respondents 1 to 4 ﬁled sale deed dated 18.4.1899 executed by Senapathi China Venku Naidu in favour of B. Thammayya and others as Ex.P1; sale deed dated 25.2.1919 executed by B. Venkateswarlu s/o Thammayya in favour of Kedara Setti Venkata Reddy as Ex.P-2; the registered surrender deed dated 20.9.1965 executed by Senapathi people in favour of Kedarsetti people in the tenancy court as Ex.P-3; the sale deed executed by Kedarsetti people dated 2.9.1968 in favour of 1st respondent and Bongarala Venkatratnam as Ex.P-4; the sale deed dated 17.8.1973 by which Bongarala Venkatratnam sold half share to respondents 1 to 4 as Ex.P-5; the injunction decree granted in favour of respondents 1 to 4 by the learned District Munsif, Anakapalli in O.S. No. 324 of 1983 as Ex.P-6; the bunch of land revenue and cist receipts in token of payment of land revenue as Ex.P-7. Before the learned District Judge, respondents 1 to 4 herein marked Exs.P8 to P15 – Xerox copy of pass books and cist receipts. It is the speciﬁc case of the respondents 1 to 4 that they are ryots and that their predecessors in title and thereafter themselves were in continuous possession and enjoyment long prior to the notiﬁed date and taking advantage of the fact that they are not residents of the village, Y. Appanna and 15 others (who were shown as respondents before the settlement court) are claiming to be ryots of the subject land and tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment; therefore, they approached the Settlement Oﬃcer. However, the Settlement Court observed that land in R.S. No. 178 and R.S. No. 232 of Koduru village was a ‘Darimila Inam’, not bounded with any conditions and Kedarsetti Venkata Reddy was the land holder of the inam; that Kedarsetti Venkata Reddy made a claim as land holder and Senapathi Satyanarayana (predecessor in title of respondents 1 to 4) claimed ryotwari patta on the ground that he was the tenant from 1944 and their claims were disallowed by the Settlement Court and the Director of Settlement, and ﬁnally when the matter went up before the Board of Revenue, both parties withdrew their petitions on the ground that the matter was settled out of court. The Settlement Court further held that in view of the said withdrawal, respondents 1 to 4 cannot be held to be ryots and accordingly dismissed the petition ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4, on 29.10.1988. However, the said order was set aside and the claim of respondents 1 to 4 was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 7.8.1995 in T.A. No. 1 of 1989. The orders passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer as well as the Appellate Tribunal clearly disclose that the petitioner herein did not ﬁle counter or did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention that the respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled for issuance of ryotwari pattas. For the ﬁrst time, in this writ petition, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, a contention is raised by the petitioner that D-Form pattas were granted and subsequently cancelled, for which there is no material available on record. Merely because the landholders’ claim for patta was rejected on the ground that there was no personal cultivation, it cannot be concluded that the ryots are not entitled to patta and the Appellate Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect. Further, the claim of respondents 1 to 4 is on the basis of sale deeds and their occupation was not on the basis of D-Form pattas. The Settlement Oﬃcer rejected to grant pattas to respondents 1 to 4 solely on the ground that earlier their predecessors- in-title and Senapathi people entered into compromise and got their revision petition dismissed before the Board of Revenue; but, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, that by itself does not amount to conclude that the Kedarisetty and the Senapathi families have colluded and got their revision application ﬁled before the Board of Revenue dismissed as not pressed, more particularly, in the absence of any evidence to the said eﬀect. The respondents 1 to 4 have adduced suﬃcient documentary evidence in support of their contention that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land even prior to the notiﬁed date and after notiﬁed date and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that they are landholders as defined under the Act. After perusing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge rightly held that the testimony of PW-1 clearly established that even prior to the notiﬁed date and after notiﬁed date the respondents 1 to 4 herein are in possession and enjoyment of the land; that they are the ‘land holders’ as deﬁned under the Act. Further, the Settlement Oﬃcer negatived the claim of respondents 1 to 4 herein solely on the ground that earlier their predecessors-in-title and Senapathi family entered into a compromise and got their revision petition dismissed before the Board of Revenue, but, as rightly observed by the learned District Judge, there is no evidence to come to such conclusion. The Settlement Oﬃcer, while dismissing the application ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4 for the issuance of patta, made investigation into the records said to have been maintained by his oﬃce but, for the reasons best known to the Settlement Oﬃcer, there are no details of such records. On the other hand, the very documentary evidence on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 went unrebutted. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, the Settlement Oﬃcer, while dismissing the claim of respondents 1 to 4 for the issuance of pattas, went beyond his jurisdiction and held that both the Kedarisetty and Senapathi families colluded and got their revision application ﬁled before the Board of Revenue, for which also there is no material on record. Further, the documentary evidence on record discloses that for several years, respondents 1 to 4 cultivated the suit land and thus they are entitled for issuance of patta. Basing on the said evidence and since no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the petitioner herein, the learned District Judge rightly directed for issuance of ryotwari pattas, in respect of the schedule land, to respondents 1 to 4 herein. In view of the above discussion, the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. No grounds are made out by the petitioner to take a diﬀerent view than what was taken by the learned District Judge in the appeal. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 30-09-2008. MVB.