THOTA SAIDAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari by calling the records connected with the order of the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records-1st respondent passed in review petition No.L1/588/2000, dated 22-01-2003 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be the tenants of Freehold land to an extent of Ac.2.68 situated in Kannaigudem village under a Sanad, which was granted in the name of Kanakapalli Janardhana Rao in the year 1869 by the Secretary of the State for India in Council in consideration of payment of money, free of land revenue for ever. THE said lands are heritable and transferable. THE village is either part of an Estate or Ryotwari village. THE Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.392/J2/79 dt.10-07-1981 issued orders applying the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P. Regulation II/1970') to the Freehold Villages situated in the Scheduled areas. Kanakapalli Janardhana Rao-Freeholder granted lands admeasuring H.O-68 acres in Sy.No.22/2P and H.2-00 acres in Sy.No.23/P situated in Kannaigudem village on permanent lease to the father of the 1st petitioner-late Venkaiah and father of the 2nd petitioner-late Ramanujaiah and ever since the petitioners are in possession. THE petitioners claim Ryotwari patta before the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam in respect of the above said lands under the Provisions of A.P. Regulation II/1970, but the said claim was rejected by the Settlement officer, Bhadrachalam-3rd respondent on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of Ryotwari Patta by order dated 19-02-1985 in case File Nos.11035 & 11068. Against the said orders, the petitioners filed appeals before the Director of Settlements-2nd respondent in A.P.No.329/85/G1 and A.P.No.330/85/G1, which were dismissed. On dismissal of the same they filed Second Appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals-1st respondent. THE said appeals were also dismissed on 21-07-2000 holding that the petitioners who are tenants are not entitled for grant of Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of A.P. Regulation II/1970 in CCLA L1/223/98. THEreafter, the petitioners filed a review petition under Section 16(f) of A.P. Regulation II/1970 to review the order passed by the Commissioner. On dismissal of the review petition the present writ petition has been filed contending that the finding of the 1st respondent that under A.P. Regulation II/1970 tenant is not entitled to Ryotwari Patta is an error on the face of record and there is no such provision in A.P. Regulation II/1970. As per Section 2(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 (Regulation I/1969) the word "tenant" means a person who holds cultivable land of another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for such to such other person and includes an absolute occupancy tenant, occupancy tenant and ordinary tenant and a village service tenant. Every tenant of a Mahal is entitled for grant of Ryotwari patta under Section 5 of Regulation I/1969. Similarly under Section 7(1) of A.P. Regulation II/1970 every Ryot is entitled to Ryotwari patta in respect of cultivable lands which were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding. In similar cases, the Director of Settlements set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam by partly allowing the appeals and remanded the cases to the Settlement Officer to examine all the documents and decide the case as per law. Though the said orders have been placed before the Commissioner of Appeal, without considering the same he dismissed the appeals as well as review petition. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) ON Enforcement of Regulation II/1970, the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam conducted suo motu enquiry for grant of Ryotwari patta in favour of the deceased appellants-Thota Venkaiah and Thota Ramanujaiah-fathers of the petitioners herein covering an extent of H.O-68 and H.2-0 situated in Kannaigudem village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District and rejected their claims on the ground that they are only lessees (tenant) and there is no provision for grant of Ryotwari patta to the tenant under A.P. Regulation II/1970 and the said leases are absolutely void under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation I/1959) as amended by A.P. Regulation I/1970.