HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.16815 OF 2010 . DATED 29th APRIL, 2011. BETWEEN Chalamcherla Seenaiah @ Srinivasulu and ors …Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.16815 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners assail the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the second respondent whereunder the revision petitions filed by them were rejected as not maintainable. They also seek a consequential order to set aside the ryotwari patta issued by the third respondent in favour of respondents 4 to 8 by his order dated 07.12.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act, 1956 ( ‘the Act’ for brevity). The brief facts of the case is that the land in Sy.Nos.141/1 and 141/3 admeasuring Ac.36.70 cents and Ac.5.26 cents respectively situated in Kanuparthipadu village of Nellore District was classified as Inam land, initially stood in the name of original inamdars namely Sri Sarvabhotla Ramaswamy Dikshitulu and others. It was a tank paramboke popularly known as ‘Mittapuri Cheruvu’. Late Dega Seshu Reddy, the father of respondents 4 and 5 and his sister, Yanamala Ramanamma together with certain others, purchased the said land through the registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1958 for a valuable consideration. That being so, upon a complaint given by some of the villagers complaining about the encroachment of the tank paramboke, the then Joint Collector, Nellore, after calling for a report, directed the third respondent to take necessary steps under Section 2-A of the Act declaring the land as Inam tank. Aggrieved by the same, the said Dega Seshu Reddy and others filed Writ Petition No.11174 of 1995 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 19.04.2006 inter alia on the ground that the affected parties were not issued notices. Pursuant thereto, orders were passed by the third respondent on 23.08.2007 declaring the land as ‘Inam dry arable’ and passed consequential order dated 07.12.2007 granting ryotwari patta in favour of respondents 4 to 8 herein. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed revision petitions before the second respondent, who dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 22.01.2010 holding that the matter was already adjudicated and decided on merits in the earlier revision petition filed by some others assailing the very same orders and that as the said adjudication was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No.2069 of 2009 by order dated 08.04.2009, the second respondent became functus officio and thus the revision petitions filed before him were not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second and third respondents narrating in detail the proceedings that took place in respect of the subject land. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Joint Collector, Nellore, submitted a report stating that the subject land has been classified as Inam land and the ground reality shows that the tank land is being utilized by the villagers for the purpose of agriculture; that in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.11174 of 1995, a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein it was reported that the original inamdars sold away the subject land to certain individuals and the same is under the active possession and enjoyment of the alinees and the subject land was converted into ryotwari vide proceedings dated 23.08.2007 under the provisions of the Act in as much as the subject land is being used for agricultural purpose for the last several years and ryotwari patta was, in fact, issued on 07.12.2007 to the eligible persons following the due procedure laid down by law and that questioning the above two orders, the petitioners herein filed two revision petitions, which were dismissed by the common order impugned in the writ petition at the admission stage as not maintainable. Counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 denying the averments specifically made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It has been averred in the counter that the petitioners have no locus standi to assail the ryotwari patta granted in favour of respondents 4 to 8 and that the petitioners have been filing proceedings one after the other without any legal and factual basis except only to harass them. It has been further pointed out that questioning the order of the third respondent dated 23.08.2007 and the consequential order dated 07.12.2007, certain individuals, who are no other than the close relatives of the petitioners herein, have already filed a revision petition before the second respondent and the said revision was dismissed on merits and thereafter questioning the same Writ Petition No.2069 of 2009 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 08.04.2009. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioners herein questioning the very same orders dated 23.08.2007 and 07.12.2007 passed by the second respondent filed two sets of revision petitions before the second respondent, who by common order dated 22.01.2010 dismissed the same as not maintainable. Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the registered sale deed dated 21.07.1958 through which respondents 4 to 8 are claiming title obviously shows the existence of tank in Sy.Nos.141/1 and 141/3 and in view of Section 2A of the Act, the tank vests with the Government and issuance of ryotwari patta in respect of the same is impermissible. He further points out that the order impugned has never been challenged by any other person by filing revision petition under Section 14-A of the Act and that even the order of the revisional authority suffers from the principle of natural justice. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue supported the impugned order passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel for respondent 4 to 8, while placing reliance on the order 08.04.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2069 of 2009 and reiterating the counter averments, submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court. From the above factual scenario, it is clear that earlier questioning the very same orders of the third respondent dated 23.08.2007 and 07.12.2007 certain individuals filed revision before the second respondent who dismissed the same on merits by his order dated 27.01.2009. Thereafter, challenging the said order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the second respondent, Writ Petition No.2069 of 2009 was filed before this Court. By order dated 08.04.2009, this Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and the material placed on record, dismissed the said writ petitions confirming the order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the second respondent. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the said order hereunder, for better understanding of the matter and effective adjudication of the present case, which reads as under: “......... The land was held as Inam, before the Act came into existence. On abolition of Inams, various consequences provided for, under the Act ensue. In case, an individual is found to be in possession and cultivation as on the notified date, he is entitled to be granted ryotwaripatta. Where, however, the lands are covered by tanks, forests, grazing lands etc., they straight away vest in the Government, under Section 2-A of the Act. Under Section 3, the Tahsildar is conferred with the power to determine the category of lands; Section 4 of the Act provides for conversion of Inams into ryotwari lands. Ryotwaripattas, if found feasible, are granted under Section 7 of the Act. It has already been mentioned that the land was purchased by Seshu Reddy and others way back in the year 1958. The third respondent declared the land, as tank, through his notification, dated 06.06.1995. That was challenged in W.P.No.11174 of 1995 and it was allowed on the ground that the affected parties were not issued notices. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and after hearing the affected parties, the third respondent issued proceedings, 23.08.2007, declaring the land as “Inam Dry Arable”. Shortly thereafter, he granted ryotwari pattas in favour of respondents 4 to 8, vide proceedings, dated 07.12.2007, under Section 7 of the Act. Normally, the disputes in relation to grant of ryotwari pattas are either between the persons claiming rights vis-à-vis the same land or between the claimants on the one hand and the Government on the other. In the instant case, the petitioners never claimed grant of ryotwari pattas in their favour. Their grievance was mostly public in nature. They wanted the land to be treated as tank. Feeling aggrieved by the ryotwaripattas granted by the third respondent in favour of respondents 4 to 8, the petitioners filed a revision before the first respondent. They justified the skipping of the remedy of appeal, by taking the plea that the appellate authority has already taken a stand in the matter. That weighed with this Court when the first respondent refused to entertain the revision and an order was passed in W.P.No.11174 of 1995 directing the first respondent to pass orders, on merits. After remand by this Court, the first respondent framed three questions for his consideration, namely, (a) Whether the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of pattas to respondents 3 to 7? (b) Whether the Tahsildar has conducted enquiry as per the provisions of the Act before declaring the subject land as “Arable”? and (c) Whether the tank was in existence on ground and also as per records; and whether the lands come under Section 2-A of the Act? To certain extent, the questions overlapped each other, in their content. However, the entire controversy was covered. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved parties. They did not claim any ryotwaripatta vis-à-vis the land. Even assuming that they are interested in preserving the tank, the occasion for them, to feel aggrieved could have arisen if only they are the ayactudars under the alleged tank. A specific finding was recorded by the first respondent to the effect that the lands of the petitioners are irrigated under SarvepalliCanal, of the existing irrigation project. The petitioners did not dispute that fact. They have not placed any material to show that they have ever drawn water from the alleged tank to irrigate their lands. They tacitly admit that their lands are being irrigated by SarvepalliCanal. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered detriment on account of grant of ryotwaripattas, in favour of respondents 4 to 8. Independent of the actual grievance of the petitioners, if, in fact, the land constituted a tank, or any other entity mentioned under Section 2-A of the Act, the ryotwaripattas granted in favour of respondents 4 to 8 can certainly be interfered with. It is, no doubt, true that in the year 1995, a notification was issued, declaring the land as tank. That obviously was, at the instance of some agencies and without conducting any enquiry, much less, with notice to the recorded owners. The notification was set aside by this Court and it was left open to the third respondent to conduct detailed enquiry, and determine the character of the land after issuing notice to the affected parties. Consequently, a detailed enquiry was conducted and vide proceedings, dated 23.08.2007, under Section 3 (3) of the Act, the third respondent declared the land as “Inam Dry Arable”. Neither the petitioners nor any other individual or authority have challenged the said order. Therefore, it becomes impermissible for any one, including the petitioners, to treat the land in question as tank, as long as the said order remains. Hence, either from the point of view of locus standi or from the facts borne out by the record, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any genuine grievance or that the ryotwaripattas granted in favour of respondents 4 to 8 are defective or contrary to law.” A careful reading and understanding of the said order palpably makes it clear that the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the second respondent confirming the orders dated 23.08.2007 and 07.12.2007 passed by the third respondent was upheld by this Court while dismissing the said writ petition. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note that the said order dated 08.04.2009 passed by this Court was not challenged by way of filing a writ appeal before this Court. As a corollary, the said order dated 08.04.2009 attained finality. It is therefore crystal clear that the above two orders dated 23.08.2007 and 07.12.2007 passed by the third respondent are once again under challenge in the present set of two revision petitions filed before the second respondent by the petitioners. Considering this in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the second respondent rightly rejected those two revision petitions as not maintainable inter alia on the ground that the second respondent became functus officio by his order dated 22.01.2010, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. Having due regard to the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2069 of 2009 and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I do not see any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated- 29th April, 2011. Msnro