IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3932 OF 2003 Between : Vangala Ramachandra Rao ... PETITIONER A N D The Mandal Revenue Officer. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3932 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 05.12.2002, in C.M.A.No.9 of 1998 on the file of District Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 30.09.1997, of the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Nellore, in rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein/appellant for grant of patta to an extent of Ac.0-97 cents in survey No.240 p and R.S.No.240/3 of Padugupadu Village of Kovvur Mandal, was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition may be stated as follows: The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased the land in question under Ex.P.1 registered sale deed, dated 06.06.1977 from Yenugula Rajeswaramma for a valuable consideration; that the vendor of the petitioner was having patta No.285 in respect of the land; that when the petitioner offered the land for mortgage he came to know that the land is not a patta land and it is granted under Darakhast rules only; that the petitioner was advised to trace out his title with the original owner and inamdar of the Village; that the then Settlement Officer, Nellore, allowed the claim of the petitioner under Section 15(1) and granted patta to the petitioner in S.R.No.1/15(1)/82, dated 10.01.1983, on the ground that the Vendor Velicherla Subbamma was the owner of the property before it was assigned to her by the Tahsildar, Kovvur; that she sold the land to the petitioner; that the then Tahsildar, Kovvur, filed an appeal before the Estate Abolition Tribunal and the Estate Abolition Tribunal in T.A.No.2/83, dated 28.02.1989, remanded the case for fresh disposal by the Settlement Officer, with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides to let in further evidence and also to receive the documents as additional evidence subject to proof and relevancy. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner purchased Ac.0-97 cents of land in survey No.240/3 of Padugupadu Village of Kovvu Mandal and he is in possession of the property; that the Government has not filed any material to show that the land in question is a Government land and no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Government to contradict the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4; that Exs.P.1 to P.11 would clearly go to show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. The respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Primary Tribunal stating that during the course of settlement operations, the claim of one Velicherla Bujjamma W/o Mallaiah in respect of land in question for grant of patta under Section 15 (1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’) was rejected; that subsequently that land was assigned to one Velicherla Subbamma; that the said Subbamma sold the same to one Yenugula Rajeswaramma, who in turn sold the same to the present petitioner; that when the petitioner filed a claim petition for grant of Ryotwari patta, the Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari patta on 10.01.1983, and on appeal, the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer for conducting fresh enquiry. 5. On appeal filed by the petitioner before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore, the matter has been remanded to the Settlement Officer, for fresh disposal. After remand, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral or documentary evidence was let in. 6. The Primary Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner claimed the title through one Balaji Singh. But there is no evidence to show that how the said Balaji Singh acquired the title over the land. In the first instance, the petitioner had taken a plea that Velicherla Bujjamma earlier made a claim for the very same land and it was rejected by the Settlement Officer. Later the daughter-in-law of Bujjamma sold the same land to one Y.Rajeswaramma. The assigned patta was granted in favour of Subbamma on 14.07.1975 i.e., two years after she sold away the property. Therefore, as on the date of selling the land to Rajeswaramma, Subbamma had no valid title. 7. The petitioner miserably failed to adduce any evidence to show that his vendor has got a valid title and also possession prior to 01.07.1945 i.e., pre abolition period. The evidence on record would clearly go to show that the petitioner got the said property under an agreement of sale, dated 06.06.1977. There cannot be any dispute that the agreement of sale does not confer any title to the parties. The grant of patta based upon an agreement of sale, cannot be granted. Therefore, the trial Court rightly confirmed the order of the Primary Tribunal and there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JANUARY 28, 2011. YVL