DAVAULRI PEDA VENKATESWARLU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are tenants of Arepalli Agraharam Inam estate village, Rompecherla Mandal, Guntur District - the Inam Estate Lands have filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the publication of Notification in Form-11 (Rule 3) in Guntur District Gazette dated 21.9.1989, under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and to set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to initiate action to take-over the Arepalli Agraharam Inam village under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and grant pattas to the petitioners in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists since several years having engaged in cultivation of their lands in Arepalli village and are ayacutdars drawing water from the local tank situated in Arepalli village. The said Arepalli Agraharam Inam was granted by Raja Maliraz Ramaymi in 1144-Fasli (1733 AD) and in column No. 6 of the Inam Statement, it was shown that as Inam village. In column No. 10 thereof, the boundaries of the Agraharam were given in terms of four different villages on four sides. Thus it is an admitted fact that Arepalli Agraharam is a whole village and named village granted and is an Estate within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1937 and also on Inam Estate liable to be abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, of 1948 (for brevity Estates Act). It is further submitted that after the enactment of the Estates Act, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Vijayawada in SR No.7 of 1949 held that Arepalli Agraharam in Narasaraopet Taluk, Guntur District is not an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1937. Against the said order, an appeal As No. 18 of 1952 was preferred to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizayanagaram which was dismissed on 18-11-1952 confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and thus it became final. Thereafter, the Act was amended by an Amendment Act of 1956 by adding an explanation 1-a to Section 3(2Xd) of the Act of 1937 so as to include the hamlets and Khandrigas also within the term "Estate" therein. Once again the Assistant Settlement Officer, Ongole took up suo motu enquiry and held by his order dated 9-3-1959 in SR No. 2058 that Arepalli Agraharam is an Estate as per the enlarged definition of the term "Estate" by the amendment Act of 1956. Against the said order, TAS No. 19 of 1959 was preferred to the District Court, Guntur which is the Estate Abolition Tribunal, and the same was dismissed confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 1188 of 1962 was filed before this High Court which was also dismissed, but in Writ Appeal No.40 of 1969, preferred therefrom, this High Court vide its order dated 11.8.1972 held that the Assistant Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire again after the Amendment Act of 1956 because it dealt with only hamlets and Khandrigas. Thereafter Agraharamdars of Arepalli Agraharam viz., respondents 4 and 5, taking advantage of the above situation claimed themselves the full title to the lands under the occupation and cultivation of the petitioners and other ryots of Arepally Agraharam by virtue of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for brevity Inams Act) and managed to get a notification published in Guntur District Gazette dated 21.9.1989 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla in Form-1, Rule 3 to the effect that it has been finally decided by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Inams Act and the lands specified therein as Inam lands, Inam village and not held by an institution. Consequently, on the publication of the aforesaid notification dated 21-9-1989, the Agrahamdars began to harass the ryots in occupation of the lands in Arepalli Agraharam claiming full ownership and title to the lands by bringing eviction proceedings against the occupants of the lands on the ground that they being tenants since 1983, have defaulted in paying rents, etc. Contrary to this view, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopeta, passed an order in OP No.228 of 1980 dated 21.9.1988 holding that the disputed land is their private land and paladugu people (claimants 5 to 11) have no possession of the disputed land for over 12 years and dismissed the suit and found that the actual possessors are claimants herein and their legal representatives and their predecessors in title are in possession and enjoyment of the lands for over statutory period. Therefore, they are entitled for the compensation amount as claimants. The notification of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla, is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the notification under the Inams Act finally deciding that the land specified therein Arepalli Agraharam is an Inam land in an Inam village is illegal, improper and ab initio void for the reason that it is settled by the entries in the Inam Register and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.40 of 1969 dated 11.8.1972 that Arepalli Agraharam is a whole village and named village and, therefore, the Inam Estate is liable to be abolished under the Estates Act. It is next contended that before finally deciding the matter, the Mandal Revenue Officer has not given any notice to conduct enquiry as required under Section 3(2) of the Inams Act calling for the statements of the persons who are interested in the Inams Lands and also after giving reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their claims and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is next contended that the judicial proceedings are rendered in 1972 and after the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the respondents have taken time upto 1989 to give notification under Section 3(2) of the Inams Act and on that ground also, the notification is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In reply to the above contentions raised by the petitioners, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla, filed counter denying that the petitioners are avacutdars drawing water from the local tank for cultivation of their lands, that there are no minor irrigation or major irrigation tanks in Arepalli village having got registered permanent wet ayacut, called Nanja Nagarjuna Sagar Project water is being utilised for cultivation. The counter reiterated two rounds of litigation and the disposal of the Writ Appeal No. 40 of 1969 dated 11-8-1972. So when once the proceedings have attained finality, now the petitioners who are parties to the above proceedings including their predecessors, have no right to question the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla who is competent to conduct enquiry under the provisions of the Act and to grant pattas to the eligible persons. The petitioners' forefathers having failed in their attempts before the Settlement Officer, the Tribunal as well as this High Court previously, have resorted to file this writ petition which is misconceived. It is further stated that the petitioners have not stated the correct facts and the writ petition is not maintainable. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order, they have to pursue alternative remedy and cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to stall the proceedings initiated by the statutory authorities. Insofar as the issuance of notification by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rompecherla, is concerned, it is submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer has already issued notification in District Gazette notifying Arepalli as an Inam village under Section 3(3) of the Inams Act after duly following the procedure laid down under Section 3(2) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the notification after lapse of two years. It is further stated that Arepalli Agraharam is Inam land in an Inam village and not held by the institution in accordance with the law and it is within the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer Rompecherla and he has not violated any of the provisions of the Act or Rules. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the findings of the Tribunal as well as this Court rendered on earlier occasions. As the Tribunal has already declared Arepalli Agraharam, is not an estate under Section 5(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act which was confirmed by this High Court, the same binding on the parties including the petitioners and that cannot be questioned in this writ petition. Therefore, the notification issued by the respondent is legal, valid and well within the provisions of the Act and Rules.