The Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy +WRIT PETITION No.2069 of 2009 % Dated 08.04.2009 # Between: Eluru Prakasam, S/o Narayya And four others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad and seven others. .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP for Revenue ^ Counsel for Respondents 4 to 8: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred NIL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2069 of 2009 Between: 1 Eluru Prakasam S/o. Narayya Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Chevireddi Srirupa W/o Ashok Reddy Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. 3 Chemudugunta Meerama W/o. Kantha Rao Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. 4 Puli Rama Devi W/o. Subramanyam Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Tupakula Srinivasulu S/o. Anakaiah Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Abids Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Dega Venkata Krishna Reddy S/o. Late Seshu Reddy R/o. Plot No.112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore, Nellore District. 5 Dega China Srinivasulu Reddy S/o. Late Seshu Reddy R/o. Plot No.112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore, Nellore District. 6 Dega Venkata Rajani W/o. D. C. Srinivasulu Reddy R/o. Plot No.112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore, Nellore District. 7 Kore Malakondaiah S/o. Late Malakondaiah R/o.D.No.7/235, Peddathota Ranganayakulapeta, Nellore, Nellore District. 8 Pothuru Vamsikrishna S/o. Jala Ramaiah R/o. North Rajupalem Village, Kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to quash the order dt. 27.01.2009 passed in proceedings No.VI/446/2008 passed by the 1st respondent by issuing the appropriate Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents 4 to 8: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2069 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners are the owners of land in different survey numbers of Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore District. They feel aggrieved by the grant of ryotwari pattas in favour of respondents 4 to 8 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the land in Survey Nos.141/1 and 141/3 of that Village (for short ‘the land’). The land was originally held by Sarvabhotla family. Late Dega Seshu Reddy, the father of respondents 4 and 5, and his sister, Yanamala Ramanamma, together with certain others, purchased the same, through sale deeds, dated 26.07.1958. It was part of an Inam. Even before any steps could be taken in respect of the land for grant of ryotwari pattas, the Tahsildar, Nellore District, the third respondent herein, issued a notification, dated 06.06.1995, under Section 2-A of the Act, declaring the land, as tank. Dega Seshu Reddy and others filed W.P.No.11174 of 1995 against the said notification. The writ petition was allowed, on the ground that the affected parties were not issued notices. Subsequently, orders were passed by the third respondent on 23.08.2007, declaring the land as “Inam Dry Arable”. Thereafter, the third respondent granted ryotwari pattas in respect of the land in favour of respondents 4 to 8. Claiming that there existed an irrigation tank over the land and that their lands are part of ayacut of that tank, the petitioners filed a revision before the first respondent. The revision was rejected on 26.05.2008, on the ground that the petitioners had to avail the remedy of appeal. Thereupon, they filed W.P.No.19444 of 2008 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 28.09.2008 and the first respondent was directed to hear the revision. The revision was dismissed on merits by the first respondent on 27.01.2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that there existed a tank over the land and it was notified under the provisions of the Act, way back in the year 1995. It is urged that the tank vests in the Government and it is impermissible to grant ryotwari pattas over the same. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The brief history relating to the rights of various individuals vis-à-vis the land and the proceedings that have taken place over a period of time, is narrated in detail. It is stated that after conducting a detailed enquiry, the third respondent declared that the land is not a tank and thereby, the very basis pleaded by the petitioners ceases to exist. It is also stated that the lands of the petitioners are irrigated through Sarveypalli Canal and they never had any right to draw the water from the alleged tank. On behalf of respondents 4 to 8, a counter-affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. They challenge the very locus standi of the petitioners to assail the pattas granted in their favour. It is stated that the petitioners have been troubling them with an oblique motive, and have instituted one kind of proceedings or the other, without any legal or factual basis. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. 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 ryotwari patta. 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. Ryotwari pattas, 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, 28.03.2007, 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 ryotwari pattas 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? T o 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 ryotwari patta 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 Sarvepalli Canal, 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 Sarvepalli Canal. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered detriment on account of grant of ryotwari pattas, 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 ryotwari pattas 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 ryotwari pattas granted in favour of respondents 4 to 8 are defective or contrary to law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.04.2009 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. B/o kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Abids Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2 CD copies.