THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.1223 of 1999 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy): This intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 23.07.1999 dismissing W.P.No.15535 of 1991 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant/petitioner filed W.P.No.15535 of 1991 challenging the order of the first respondent Government in G.O.Ms.No.855, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 26.09.1991 conferring the powers on the Mandal Revenue Officers of Rampa Chodavaram and Gangavaram Mandals in East Godavari District to be the Special Tahsildars to take possession of the Mokhasa villages situated within their respective jurisdiction on their behalf under clause (c) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 (for brevity “Regulation No.2 of 1969”). The petitioner further prayed for consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the villages said to be in his possession. On dismissal of the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge on 23.07.1999, the petitioner preferred this appeal and the same has been initially dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.08.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17403 of 1999. When the Special Leave Petition was taken up by the Supreme Court, the petitioner pleaded that there was a document (adoption deed) to prove that the petitioner was the adopted son of the erstwhile Mokhasadar, but the Division Bench pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that there was adoption. In view of the same, the petitioner was granted liberty to produce the adoption deed and seek review of the judgment in Writ Appeal, and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn by order dated 06.12.1999. After withdrawing the said Special Leave Petition, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.A.M.P.No.305 of 2000 in W.A.No.1223 of 1999 seeking review of the judgment passed in the writ appeal. The said Review Petition was allowed on 16.12.2004 recalling the judgment dated 26.08.1999 passed in the writ appeal and the matter was directed to be posted for fresh hearing. The facts, which gave rise to filing this writ appeal, are briefly stated as under: By a Sanad issued in G.O.Ms.No.1239 of 10.07.1907 communicated in R.DIS.12/Ag/ of 07 dated 03.08.1907, one Raja Madhuviti Peda Rama Bhupati Deo was granted Mokhasa of Nellipudi and Kurumagondi Villages of Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and he was the Mokhasadar for the said villages. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangvaram issued notice dated 19.10.1991 to the petitioner, who claims to be the grandson of Raja Madhuviti Peda Rama Bhupati Deo, calling upon him to hand over the records relating to the said two villages on the ground that Mokhasas were abolished and that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 26.09.1991 authorized him to take possession of the said villages. The petitioner challenged the said G.O in the writ petition on the ground that ‘Mokhasa’ and ‘Mokhasadar’ were inserted in Section 2(ff) and (fff) respectively by A.P. Regulation I of 1989, and therefore, unless the Muttas and Mokhasas are abolished by issuing a Notification as contemplated under sub-Section (4) of Section 1 of Regulation No.2 of 1969, which the Government did in G.O.Ms.No.55 of Revenue (JA) Department, dated 18.01.1992 appointing 1st February, 1992 as the date on which the provisions of the said regulation shall come into force in regard to the seven Mokhasas including Nellipudi and Kurumagondi Mokhasas, issuance of the impugned notification conferring powers on the Mandal Revenue Officers as Special Tahsildars to take possession of Mokhasas earlier to the notification does not arise. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1009, dated 19.10.1974 clarified that Regulation No.2 of 1969 does not attract Mokhasa in the Agency areas, and therefore, the tenure of Mokhasa cannot be abolished under the said Regulation and deleted Nimmalapalem, which was notified as Mutta in the Notification issued in the G.O.Ms.No.1437, Revenue dated 22.12.1970, and subsequently determined as Mokhasa. Similarly, Nellipudi and Kurumagondi notified as sub-Muttas in the said notification were also deleted from the said notification as they are treated as Mokhasas. The contention is as Mokhasas were notified in the year 1992, the impugned notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer purporting to exercise the power conferred on him vide G.O.Ms.No.855 dated 26.09.1991, is without jurisdiction, and therefore, the G.O itself has to be set aside to the extent of conferring powers on the Mandal Revenue Officers of Rampa Chodavaram and Gangavaram Mandals to be the Special Tahsildar to take possession of the Mokhasa Villages situated within their respective jurisdiction when there is no Mokhasa Villages have been notified. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition stating that in exercise of the powers conferred under the Ryotwari Rules, 1970, the Government authorised the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram to be the Special Tahsildar to take possession of the Mokhasa Villages situated within his jurisdiction on behalf of the Government under clause (c) of Section 3 of Regulation No.2 of 1969; that there are two Mokhasa Villages viz., Nellipudi and Kurumagondi situated in Gangavaram Mandal, which were under a Sanad granted by the Government in favour of Mokhasadar-Sri Raja Madhuviti Peda Bhupati Dev by virtue of succession; that the said Mokhasa villages were under the control of Mokhasadar - Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju of Rampayarrampalem of Gokavaram Mandal; that said Mokhasadar- Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju died on 19.07.1990 and as there are no legal heirs to succeed as Mokhasadar to take over possession of the above Mokhasa villages, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice; that the writ petitioner, who claims to be the adopted son of late Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju, was called upon to produce the adoption deed to the Mandal Revenue Officer for handing over two villages on 11.11.1991 and that it was found that the Mokhasadar or his heirs were not paying the land revenue for the last three years and as per the sanad, the Mokhasadar was under obligation to pay the land revenue regularly and the Mokhasadar violated the conditions of the sanad and in the absence of any succession granted to the Mokhasadar, the property vests in the Government. Hence, the properties were taken possession on 11.11.1991. Sri B.Kanta Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that once the Government under G.O.Ms.No.1009, dated 19.10.1974 deleted Nellipudi and Kurumagondi villages from the notification as Mokhasa villages, the Government again appointing the Mandal Revenue Officer as Special Tahsildar through G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 26.09.1991 to take possession of the said villages, does not arise. Admittedly, Regulation No.2 of 1969 was made for abolition of “Muttas” in certain schedule areas of State of Andhra Pradesh and conversion thereof into Ryotwari lands. By Regulation I of 1989 ‘Mokhasa’ and ‘Mokhasadar’ were inserted with consequential amendment of ‘Mutta’ and including “a sub-Muttadar including a Mokhasa held by Mokhasadar” under Section 2(g) and Section 2(h) was amended by substituting the words “and includes his successors- in-interest” with the words “or a sub-Muttadar, or a Mokhasadar and includes their successors-in-interest”. On amending the same, Mokhasadars were abolished through G.O.Ms.No.55, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 18.01.1992. Therefore, even before the abolition of Mokhasas, taking possession of the Mokhasa villages does not arise. As per condition No.4 of the Sanad, grant is not transferable and may not be encumbered in any way and is liable at the discretion of Government to be cancelled and revoked if it is alienated or encumbered, which is also conditional on the attendance of the incumbent with his person upon the Government Agent and his Assistants whenever called upon to do so, and that when the incumbent dies leaving more heirs than one, the Government shall be at liberty to choose the person whom they deem to be best qualified to succeed and most acceptable to the people as successor. However, though the petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju under the adoption deed dated 21.03.1984, he has not obtained any succession on the death of Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju on 19.07.1990 to claim as Mokhasadar of the said two villages. As per Section 1(4) of Regulation No.2 of 1969, it shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, appoint and they may appoint different dates for different muttas. Section 2(g) defines “Mutta”, which means a village or group of villages held a muttadar; or “a sub-muttadar and includes a Mokhasa held by a Mokhasadar”. Section 2(h) defines ‘Muttadar’, which means a person who holds a mutta under a sanad granted by the Government subject to the payment of a fixed amount of land revenue to the Government and who assists the Government in maintaining law and order in the mutta. The definition of “Mutta” under Section 2(g) and ‘Muttadar” under Section 2(h) were amended by Regulation I of 1989. It is not in dispute that originally ‘Makhasa’ and ‘Mokhasadar’ have not been defined under Regulation No.2 of 1969, but they were inserted by A.P Regulation I of 1989 and on such insertion, a notification as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of Regulation No.2 of 1969, has been issued through G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 18.01.1992. Therefore, conferring powers of Special Tahsildar on the Mandal Revenue Officers to take possession of the Mukhasa villages under G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 26.09.1991, and his issuing notice on 19.10.1991 for taking possession of the villages is without jurisdiction, and therefore, the said G.O as well as the notice are liable to be set aside. During the pendency of the appeal, it is brought to our notice that the Government issued notification under G.O.Ms.No.289, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 12.05.2000, in super session of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 18.01.1992, appointing 12th day of May, 2000 as the date on which the provisions of Regulation No.2 of 1969 shall come into force in respect of seven Mokhasas as specified in the scheduled appended to it, which includes Nellipudi and Kurumagondi Villages. On issuing the said notification, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.432, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 22.03.2003 issued draft settlement notification embodying the principles on which the proposed settlement would be under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 13 of Regulation No.2 of 1969 and also mentioned that all the persons interested may file their objections or suggestions under clauses (d) of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the said Regulation read with Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1970 before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, within a period of two months. On such objections being called for, the petitioner and others filed their objections before the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.A2/1180/2001, dated 25.11.2006 rejected the said objections holding that since the Government have brought the term Mokhasa under the purview of Regulation No.2 of 1969 by way of amended Regulation I of 1989, there is no force in the objections filed by the parties. Questioning the same, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.768 of 2007 and the same is pending. In view of the notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 12.05.2000, appointing 12th day of May, 2000 as the date on which the provisions of Regulation No.2 of 1969 shall come into force in respect of the seven Mokhasa villages, necessary proceedings have to be initiated by the competent authority, who has been conferred with power of a Settlement Officer under Section 4 of sub-section (1) of Regulation No.2 of 1969 and he has to proceed further in the matter. In view of the same, the appellant, who claims to be the adopted son of Sri Raja Madhuviti Yerramraju, is at liberty to avail the remedies available to prove his claim based on the Will pleaded by him and for grant of succession before the Government and competent authority. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed quashing G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 26.09.1991, and the consequential notice dated 19.10.1991 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date: 15.02.2011 va