IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16002 of 2002 Between: 1 Allu Appalaswamy son of Sanyasi R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. 2 Allu Swamy Naidu s/o. Gouru Naidu R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. 3 Allu Tirupathi S/o. Ramanna R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. 4 Allu Appala Naidu s/o. Buchanna R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. 5 Lachireddy Appala Naidu late Sivudu Naidu R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. 6 Allu Krishna Rao S/o late Yeruku Naidu R/o Naidu Veedhi, Saluru Post, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Salur, Vizianagaram District. ....RESPONDENTS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY ASSISTED BY SRI Y.SUDHAKAR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash endorsement dated 18-06-2002 of respondent No.1 and to further direct the respondents to implement order of Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Parvathipuram in respect of ryotwari patta dated 06-09-1960 in survey, settlement and land records by mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of land admeasuring Acs.25.25 cents in O.S.No.18 corresponding to R.S.No.191 of Salur Village. Following an enquiry held under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”), ryotwari patta in respect of the said extent was granted by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Parvathipuram in favour of petitioners 1 to 6 (during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners 3 and 6 died and their legal representatives are brought on record), who are hereinafter referred to as the original petitioners. The original petitioners’ efforts for mutation of their names in the revenue records did not fructify. Therefore, they filed O.S.No.570 of 1988 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur for grant of mandatory injunction and also for a direction to the defendants therein to incorporate the order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar in the revenue record. Initially, the suit was decreed ex parte. However, after the intervention by this Court in CRP No.3389 of 1999, the same was set aside, at the instance of the respondents, and was eventually dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Salur by judgment dated 13-11-2000. A copy of the said judgment is placed before this Court, a perusal of which reveals that the said suit was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of Section 14 of the Act and the judgment of this Court in Pujari Venkatasubbaiah and others vs. Sree Madduleti Narasimha Swami Temple[1]. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that appeal bearing A.S.No.52 of 2000 was filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili and that the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-02-2002. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that by inadvertence, the said fact was not referred to in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. Be that as it may, when the original petitioners made a representation to respondent No.1 seeking appropriate directions to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Salur to incorporate their names in the revenue record, the same was rejected by endorsement dated 18-06- 2002. This endorsement is assailed in this writ petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, wherein, it is, inter alia, averred that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the original petitioners does not conform to the provisions of the Act since the extent of Acs.25.25 cents, for which such a patta was granted, is a tank-bed and therefore, the original petitioners are not entitled for mutation of their names in the revenue record. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of the original petitioners as far back as 06-09-1960 has become final and that therefore, the respondents are bound to implement the same. He further submitted that while the stand of the respondents that the land is a tank-bed is not correct, in any event, the same has no relevance to this case because Section 2-A of the Act, which vests tank-beds and irrigation works etc., in the Government, was introduced in the year 1975 by Amending Act 20 of 1975, and that the patta having been granted to the original petitioners in the year 1960, the said provision has no retrospective operation. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat vs. Medisetti Venkata Suryanarayana and another[2], in support of his contention. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since the land for which ryotwari patta was granted was a tank, the order granting ryotwari patta is contrary to Section 2-A of the Act and therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to implement such an illegal patta. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. The following facts are admitted. That the original petitioners were granted ryotwari patta on 06-09-1960 in respect of Acs.25.25 cents in O.S.No.18 of Salur Village, Vizianagaram District; that the civil suit, namely; O.S.No.570 of 1988 filed by the original petitioners in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur for mandatory injunction was dismissed on the ground that such a suit is barred by Section 14 of the Act and that the appeal filed by the original petitioners against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn. In the backdrop of these admitted facts, the short question that requires to be adjudicated is whether the petitioners are entitled for implementation of ryotwari patta granted in favour of the original petitioners in the year 1960. When once a ryotwari patta is granted, it binds everyone unless the same is reversed by the hierarchical authorities. Section 7(2) of the Act provides for a right of appeal to an aggrieved party against grant of ryotwari patta. Section 14-A of the Act empowers the revisional authority to entertain revision either on an application or suo motu to examine the records and to modify, annul or reverse or remit for consideration any order passed by the subordinate authorities. Undoubtedly, the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar granting ryotwari patta to the original petitioners is amenable to such a revisional jurisdiction. Admittedly neither an appeal was filed nor a revision was entertained either on an application or suo motu against the said order of granting ryotwari patta. Therefore, the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the original petitioners has attained finality. It is hence not permissible for the respondents to refuse to implement the ryotwari patta on the purported ground that the land covered by the same is a tank-bed, which vested in the Government under Section 2-A of the Act. Even assuming that the respondents found that there was an error in granting ryotwari patta, the order requires annulment by either the appellate or revisional authority. The respondents merely on the basis of their unilateral conclusion on the nature of the land refuse to implement the ryotwari patta by treating the land as a tank-bed. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, even if the land is a tank-bed, Section 2-A of the Act, ex facie, has no application to the present case because it was introduced by Amending Act 20 of 1975, while the ryotwari patta was granted in the year 1960. The Division Bench of this Court in Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat (supra) held as under: “Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act would obviously operate prospectively to vest only such lands which continue to enjoy the inam character on the date when the Section comes into force and cannot be resorted to vest lands which had ceased to be of that nature and sold as such much prior to the Section coming into force. As such since there is no case that the land had vested as inam in the State Government being poromboke or tank-bed, the question of State Government being impleaded as a party did not arise, and the mere fact that the District Collector granted permission to construct upon the lands would not defeat the title of the respondents if it otherwise inheres in them.” In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the original petitioners is not liable for implementation. Indeed, the reasoning contained in the impugned endorsement dated 18-06- 2002, issued by respondent No.1, appears strange. Respondent No.1, having noted that patta was granted in favour of the original petitioners in respect of tank and that no appeal was preferred before the appropriate forum against the grant of patta, concludes that the original petitioners’ request for incorporation of their names deserves no consideration. The fact that no appeal was filed against the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of the original petitioners is a circumstance, which should be construed in their favour, but not against them. The impugned endorsement can, therefore, be termed as wholly irrational. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned endorsement is quashed. The respondents are directed to implement the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the original petitioners, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th February, 2009 vrn [1] 1993 (3) ALT 287 [2] 1995 (2) ALD 174 (DB)