KARRI RAMA MURTHY Vs. ADIMALLA NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, gives rise to an interesting question of law, whether a petition under section 56 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) to decide a dispute as to who is the lawful ryot, is or is not maintainable after the grant of rough patta to one party.

(2.) The material facts which are not only not in dispute but lie in a short compass, may briefly be stated: Jaggampeta estate situate in the d1strict of East Godavari was taken over by the State in the year 1959. R.S. No. 104 of Jaggampeta village comprising Ac. 4-04 cents was a ryoti land in that inam estate which was taken over as per the provisions of the Act. One Adimalla Nagamma, the 1st respondent herein, was granted a rough patta under Exhibit R-2 for the aforesaid land under section 11 of the Act in the year 1960. The petitioner herein filed an application under section 56 (1) of the Act in the year 1966, for a declaration that he is the lawful ryot entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta and for cancellation of the rough patta in favour of the 1st respondent and for grant of the same in his favour. The 1st respondent herein resisted the application before the Ass1stant Settlement Officer, Anakapalle. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and one Venkata Rao as P.W. 2 who was appointed as Commissioner in O.S. No. 83 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the D1strict Munsif, Peddapuram. P.W. 2 filed a plan and report which were marked as Exhibit P-17. The petitioner filed Exhibits P-1 to P-17 in support of his plea. The 1st respondent examined herself as R.W. 1 and filed Exhibit R-1 a gift .deed, Exhibit R-2 a rough patta and Exhibits R-3 to R-6 receipts and Exhibit R-7 the delivery deed in support of her contention. The Ass1stant Settlement Officer, on a consideration of the evidence oral and documentary, held the petitioner as the lawful ryot entitled for the ryotwari patta and issued the patta, cancelling the rough patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent, by his order dated 3Oth October, 1967. Aggrieved by the decision of the Ass1stant Settlement Officer, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal under section 56 (2) of the Act to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Rajahmundry which reversed the orders of the Ass1stant Settlement Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 56 (1) of the Act cannot be invoked after the grant of ryotwari patta under section 11 of the Act. Hence this writ petition by the Petitioner to quash the orders of the Estates Abolition Tribunal.

(3.) Sri N. Bapi Raju for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the tribunal is illegal, erroneous and amounts to failure to exercise its jurisdiction and hence, is liable to be quashed. Sri C. Poornaiah for the contesting 1st respondent opposed this claim of the petitioner contending inter alia that no. application under section 56 (1) to decide the question as to who is the lawful ryot, is not maintainable after the grant of rough patta under section 11 of the Act.