THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2105 of 2003 March 04, 2011 Between: Baddevolu Ravindra Reddy, S/o.Venkatakrishna Reddy ... Petitioner And The Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hydeabad And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2105 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by the first respondent under Section 7(d) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act). By the impugned order, the first respondent confirmed the orders dated 30.1.1997 of the second respondent in two revision petitions under Section 5(2) of the Act setting aside the ryotwari patta issued by the third respondent (Settlement Officer) in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.97 in S.No.80/2, Acs.0.89 each in S.Nos.94/10 to 13, Acs.0.73 in S.No.94/14 and Acs.0.72 in S.No.93/1 (total Acs.8.98 – hereafter, the subject land) under Section 11(a) of the Act. The petitioner’s case, as alleged in the writ affidavit, is as follows. The petition schedule land forms part of Venkatagiri Zamin Estate. On the application made by the petitioner’s grandfather, Baddevolu Ramakrishna Reddy, on 17.1.1918, Rajah of Venkatagiri made an endorsement granting patta in respect of the petition schedule land, which is locally called Pathala Cheruvu on a monthly payment of assessment of Rs.5/- per Gorru (one Gorru = Acs.3.00). The grant was under a document of 1918. The said estate was notified by the government on 07.9.1949. The third respondent, after perusing the oral and documentary evidence that include the receipts for Faslis 1344 to 1347 (1934 to 1937), Faslis 1350 to 1352 (1940 to 1942) and Fasli 1354 (1944), other pre-abolition records, and the oral evidence of ryots, accepted the claim of the petitioner. The ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act was granted vide S.R. File No.50/11(a)/82, NLR, dated 22.11.1982. The second respondent suo motu took the case for revision under Section 5(2) of the Act. The fourth respondent also filed a revision petition. On considering the record, the second respondent set aside the ryotwari patta. The petitioner then went in revision before the first respondent, who confirmed the order of the second respondent. The petitioner contends that after abolition of the estates, the records of Venkatagiri Estate were taken delivery by the Government. When the enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Officer, the Tahsildar did not produce pre abolition records and deliberately withheld the records. When the petitioner applied for certified copies, the fourth respondent informed that pre abolition records are not available. Before the Settlement Officer, the Tahsildar contended that the petition schedule land was registered as Gayalu and kancha poramboke in the pre abolition records. The Settlement Officer rejected the evidence and granted patta. However the second respondent or the first respondent did not consider the evidence produced by the petitioner or various grounds raised by him. The counter affidavit of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer is as follows. Mannur Village of Balayapalli Mandal was a part of Venkatagiri Zamin Estate, which was notified under the Act on 07.9.1949. The petitioner filed a claim petition with delay of 33 years for ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land. The delay was condoned and the third respondent granted patta in SR No.50/11(a)/82/NLR dated 22.11.1982 although the subject land is classified as grazing poramboke and kept waste. In 1975 the subject land was assigned to landless poor persons, M/s.B.Ramaiah, Ega Chenchaiah, B.Yerraiah, B.Venkataiah, B.Siddaiah, B.Chenchaiah and Smt.Ega Chinnakka. The Tahsildar, Venkatagiri, therefore, filed a revision before the second respondent who also initiated suo motu enquiry against the orders passed by the then Settlement Officer, Sri A.D.V.Reddy. The revision petitions were allowed and ryotwari patta granted to the petitioner was cancelled, which was also confirmed by the first respondent while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. While denying the allegation that Raja of Mannur granted patta in 1918 in favour of petitioner’s grandfather, it is stated that Ex.P1, is representation to Rajah Chelikani Jagannadha Rao Bahadur of Mannur Estate by Baddevolu Rama Krishna Reddy, for grant of patta for the subject land. In the margin of the representation, it was noted that ‘proceedings for grant of patta’. But the same cannot be treated as patta and it is only a representation to the Rajah on a plain paper. It has no basis and no patta in the prescribed form was issued by the Zamindar’s office. The cist receipts, Exs.P2 and P3, produced by the petitioner do not mention S.No. or Paimaish number., nor the name of the ryot is mentioned in the cist receipts for Faslis 1346, 1347, 1350, 1351, 1352 and 1354. They also not contained S.No. or Paimaish number. The pre-abolition S.No.86 (now S.Nos.94/11 and 94/12) admeasuring Acs.469 is classified as “Gayalu and Kancha poramboke land” (grazing ground) in Survey Land Register (SLR) prepared at the time of survey operations. Therefore the lands are not under ryotwari tenure or under the cultivation of the petitioner or his predecessors. The exhibits marked do not contain the signatures of Settlement Officer and depositions of witnesses do not contain the date nor the attestation of the Settlement Officer. The allegation that there is communal land is denied and it is stated that the land is waste on ground. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a dispute about the petitioner filing the application and evidence under Section 11-A of the Act, the second respondent ought to have remanded the matter for Primary Authority for proper enquiry; the Tahsildar failed to produce the pre-abolition records in support of the plea that the land is Kancha poramboke land; and that all the authorities failed to consider relevant aspects of the matter for grant of patta. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that when the land is registered as kancha poramboke land which was kept waste till 1975, the ryotwari patta could not have been granted by the Settlement Officer. He would urge that the Settlement Officer illegally entertained the application under Section 11-A of the Act even though it was filed with delay of 33 years and that the documents produced by the petitioner did not contain the signature of the Estate Authorities and, therefore, the plea of grant of patta cannot be accepted. Before formulating the points that arise for consideration, it is relevant to analyse the order of the second respondent who suo motu called for the records and considered the validity of the patta along with revision filed by the Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the Act. In the revision filed by the Tahsildar, it was urged that (i) the subject land is a communal land and it is classified as grazing ground poramboke; (ii) till 1975 the land was kept waste and that in 1975 the land was assigned to landless poor persons; and (iii) the Settlement Officer has not verified the cist receipts with reference to the old estate accounts as to whether the amount noted in the cist receipts was brought into account and also failed to examine the genuineness of the cist receipts. The second respondent suo motu initiated revisional jurisdiction on two grounds: (i) the patta was granted without verifying the pre-abolition records; and there was no physical verification as to whether the land was in physical possession prior to 01.7.1945; and (ii) before granting patta, notice of enquiry was not served on the Tahsildar. Considering these two aspects, the second respondent recorded the findings. For ready reference, the relevant portion from the order dated 30.1.1997 of the second respondent is extracted below. The verification of lower court record revealed that the order now sought for revision is not an order passed in routine course following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the E.A. Act 1948 for the following reasons. The last docket entry was on 19.11.1982 adjourning the case to 02.12.1982 and directing the office to issue summons to the Karanam. Thereafter there were no entries. The order now sought for revision was dated 12.11.1982 which is much earlier to the date to which the case was adjourned. The deposition of the witnesses and the documents marked as exhibits available in the lower court record from page 39 to 57 did not contain the signatures of the then settlement officer and the date of recording of such evidence was not noted thereon. They are incomplete in all receipts. It is thus evident the deposition, documents marked as exhibits and the order copy purported to have been passed by the settlement officer on 22.11.1982 were tagged on to the lower court file subsequently without proper enquiry. In view of this position, I set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.R.No.50/11(a)/82-NLR, dated 22.11.1982 and in the result both the revisions are allowed. In his revision petition before the first respondent, the petitioner contended that the Settlement Officer conducted proper enquiry after considering the counter of the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri; that Rajah of Venkatagiri had issued an endorsement on 17.11.1918 to Baddevolu Ramakrishna Reddy granting zamindari patta, which was supported by the pre-abolition cist receipts from the year 1934 to 1944 and subsequent cist receipts from 1961 to 1980; that the documents are corroborated by the SLR; that the land was locally known as “Pothalapolam”; and that this was not a grazing land. The first respondent verified the records of the Settlement Officer as well as the first revisional authority and dismissed the revision observing as follows. The Revision petitioner has not filed any additional documentary evidence before this court though the R.P. is pending in this court right from 1997 onwards. Further, a perusal of the exhibit P1 of the S.O. reveals that it is only on a white paper and it does not contain either the signature of the Zamindar or any authority of the Estate and that this document is only on a plain paper and it was not issued by the Estate authority on the prescribed proforma. Further, a perusal of the certified copy of Survey Settlements Register filed by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner before the D.O.S. clearly shows that the schedule land was classified as “anadhinam” land during the pre-abolition period and that the Revision Petitioner is in possession of the schedule land during the survey and settlement operations. Therefore, it is evident that the Revision Petitioner herein failed to prove that the schedule lands are ryoti in nature and that his ancestors were lawfully inducted into the schedule lands long prior to 01.07.1945 as stipulated under section 11(a) of the E.A.Act, 1948. Therefore, the D.O.S. rightly cancelled the Ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Officer to the Revision petitioner herein in SR No.50/11(a)/82 dated 22.11.1982. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Director of Settlements in RP Nos.181/83 and 535/84 dated 30.1.1997 and thus the Revision is dismissed. From the perusal of the orders of the second respondent as well as the first respondent, it can be concluded that both the authorities came to the conclusion that the subject land is a communal land kept as a grazing poramboke; that no patta was granted to the petitioner’s ancestors; and that the evidence of pre-abolition record produced by the petitioners cannot be believed. Therefore the points that arise for consideration are: (1) whether the land is a grazing poramboke land and whether the patta granted by the third respondent is valid; and (2) whether the petitioner discharged burden of proving that the land for which he claimed patta is ryoti land and that he was continuously in possession of the land before July 1945. Point No.1: Both the authorities – second respondent and first respondent; verified the records especially SLR and recorded a finding of fact that the land is classified in the SLR as Gayalu and kancha poramboke land and that the Survey Settlement Register filed by the petitioner before the first respondent also shows that the land is classified as “anadhinam” which means that it was not in the position of anybody. Being a question of fact, in this certiorari proceedings, this Court is precluded from reappreciating the evidence. But as legal principle the grant of patta in respect of grazing poramboke land is certainly illegal and unsustainable. Under Section 11 of the Act every ryot in the estate shall be entitled to patta for ryoti land. Similarly, under Section 12 landlord shall be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of private land belonging to Zamindar if the same is under cultivation. The grant of patta either under Sections 11, 12 or 13, however subject to provisions of Section 13(b) of the Act, which reads as under. Section 13(b)(i): All lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder, by inheritance or succession under a will, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the date of such acquisition or the 1st day of July, 1945, whichever is later and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from such later date; (ii) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July, 1945, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date; (iii) all lands not being (i) lanks lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, clause (16), sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estate Land Act, or (iii) forest lands which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 1st day of July, 1945, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date. Explanation:--“Cultivate” in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act is prohibited in respect of the categories of land as mentioned in Section 13(b)(iii) of the Act. The grant of patta in respect of Kunta land, burial ground or other communal land like grazing land (kancha poramboke) is certainly prohibited as held by Full Bench of this Court in P.Chenchulakshamma v E.A.Tribunal[1]. In the said Judgment, it was held as under. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion; Lanka Lands, lands of the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, and forest lands are excluded from the purview of Section 13(b) (iii) of the Abolition Act and no ryotwari pattas could be granted to the landholder under that provision in respect of those lands. The mere non-user of the communal lands for the purposes for which they were intended and set apart, as on the date of the application of the Abolition Act to the estate is not material and does not alter their communal character, if, by the time the Abolition Act came to be applied to the estate in which they are situate, they ere lands coming within the description specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act. Despite the disuse to which they have fallen and despite the other users they have been unauthorisedly and illegally put to they would nonetheless continue to be lands belonging to the category specified in Section 3 (16) (a) (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act in the absence of any order under Section 20-A (1)(b) of the Estates Land Act. (emphasis supplied) In Director of Settlements, Hyderabad v Neerupaka Rama Krishna[2], the patta was claimed in respect of the land of Venkatagiri Estate, which was described in the revenue records as burial ground/poramboke land. Referring to Section 13(b) of the Act, this Court held that the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act is prohibited in respect of lands, which are classified as grazing/porakboke lands and which are not under cultivation. The learned counsel, however, vehemently contends that the first respondent ignored abundant evidence to show that the petitioner is in possession of the cultivable land in respect of which patta was sought. This is a question of fact, which cannot be decided in the writ petition. Even otherwise as held by the Full Bench in Chenchulakshamma, the nature and history of the land as on the date of coming into force of the Act, even if there is proven non-user of the land, has to be taken into consideration. The petitioner failed to prove that the land, which is allegedly in possession, is not one of the prohibited categories of lands for claiming ryotwari patta. Point No.2: The petitioner relied on Ex.P1 which is alleged to be application dated 17.11.1918 made by Baddevolu Rama Krishna Reddy to Rajah of Mannur Estate with endorsement thereon. He also relied on the cist receipts for Faslis 1344 to 1347 and 1350 to 1354, collectively marked as Ex.P1, and other cist receipts collectively marked as Ex.P3 as well as Exs.P4 to P6. There is no dispute that except Ex.P1, there is no patta granted to Rama Krishna Reddy by Rajah or the office of Zamin Estate of Mannur. This Court fails to understand as to how an application made by a person to Zamindar for grant of patta can by itself be treated as patta even if it is an endorsement thereon. Indeed as held by this Court in R.Elumalai Chetty v R.Rathnavelu Chetty[3] even a rough patta granted to a person does not confer any title. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that Ex.P1 is a patta granted by the Zamindar. As found by the first and second revisional authorities, the cist receipts are not properly correlated to the Field S.No. and, therefore, no importance can be attached to them especially when it was found from the record that the Settlement Officer did not even put his initials or endorsed on these documents or the deposition of Karanam, who gave evidence as P.W.1. It is axiomatic that the certiorari is exercised by the Court of judicial review only when there is a grave error apparent on the face of the record. The appreciation of evidence by the certiorari court is, ordinarily, not called for unless there is ex facie and palpable perversity in the findings of the decision maker. Both these are absent in this case. Therefore, interference is not called for. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March , 2011 YS [1] AIR 1972 AP 1 (FB) [2] 2001(5) ALD 828 (DB) [3] 1971(2) An.WR 193 (DB)