M S N RAJU Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the Respondents in not delivering possession of the lands, after granting ryotwari pattas, pattadar pass books and title deeds to the Petitioners under the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Abolition of Inams and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, even after clearance of the subject lands from the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 as per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C. No. 356 of 1975 dated 09.09.2003, as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought to the Respondents to deliver possession of the lands, situated in T.D. No. 1277 of Thandrangi Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District, to the Petitioners as per the demarcation and identification contained in their ryotwari pattas.

(2.) It is the Petitioners' case that late P.V.G. Raju, erstwhile Maharaja of Vizianagaram, was the owner of various extents of lands including T.D. No. 1277 of Thandrangi Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District; he had filed a declaration under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in L.C.C. No. 3456 of 1975 before the Revenue Divisional Officer declaring the said land as part of his estate; the lands in Thandrangi village were assumed to be an estate village and, in the final computation, these lands admeasuring 678 acres of wet land and 303 acres of dry land were declared surplus; possession of these lands was taken over by the Government consequent upon its determination as surplus by the Land Reforms Tribunal; the Petitioners purchased 1/3rd share of the erstwhile Maharaja, from his wife, of an extent of 211.90 acres of wet land and 77.30 acres of dry land; subsequently the lands in the said village were held not to form part of an estate, but to be an inam village; the Petitioners applied for issuance of ryotwari pattas before the 1st Respondent who, vide proceedings dated 12.11.1998, passed orders holding that the Petitioners were entitled for ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands; all the Petitioners were issued ryotwari pates in Form - VIII; individual pattas were issued in their favour by order of the 1st Respondent dated 15.11.1998; they were, however, not put in possession of the lands as possession was taken over by the State earlier on the premise that it formed part of the surplus land of the erstwhile Maharaja under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973; when they approached the 1st Respondent, for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, they were asked to regularize the unregistered document executed, by the widow of the late Maharaja, in 1967; they had requested the 2nd Respondent to pass appropriate orders excluding the land in T.D. No. 1277 of Thandrangi village from the ceiling declaration of the Maharaja; the Land Reforms Tribunal, by order dated 27.04.2001 in L.C.C. No. 356 of 1975, had excluded the land that was sold to the Petitioners, and for which ryotwari pattas were issued to them, from the ceiling declaration and surplus computation of the erstwhile Maharaja; the Government filed L.R.A. No. 1 of 2001 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal; the appeal in L.R.A. No. 1 of 2001 was allowed on 09.09.2002, and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry by the Land Reforms Tribunal; they filed C.R.P. No. 4305 of 2002 against the remand order and, since this Court did not interfere, the 2nd Respondent passed orders afresh confirming exclusion of the Petitioners patter lands from the declaration of erstwhile Maharaja; against the said order the Government did not prefer any appeal; the ryotwari pattas granted to the Petitioners, under the Inams Abolition Act, was valid as the lands, covered by ryotwari pattas, were excluded from the holding of the declaring; and, as possession of the lands had been taken over by the Government, long prior to determination of the tenure of the land, they were entitled for delivery of possession of the lands, more so as the lands had already been demarcated, and the lands covered by each ryotwari patter identified. The Petitioners would further submit that, since proceedings under the Ceiling Act continued up to 09.09.2003, they did not take any steps earlier for recovery of possession of the land from the Respondent; the 1st Respondent, by order dated 10.10.2003, had regularized the unregistered sale transaction, and had issued a certificate in their favour under Section 5-A(4) of the Act read with Rule 22(5); consequently the 1st Respondent had issued pattadar pass books and title deeds to the Petitioners; though they were holding the certificates, they were not delivered possession of the lands; and they submitted a representation on 25.11.2003 seeking delivery of possession of the lands, but to no avail. Apprehending encroachments over the said lands, a direction is sought by the Petitioners that possession of the lands, for which they were hitherto granted ryotwari pattas, be delivered to them.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent, it is stated that the lands in Thandrangi Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District were originally under the control and ownership of late P.V.G. Raju, the brother of the erstwhile Maharaja, vide title deed No. 1277 of Thandrangi village; initially the said lands were taken over by the State under the provisions of the A.P. Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act; Sri P.V.G. Raju had filed a declaration under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and, as he was declared a surplus land owner, he surrendered the entire land in the village in favour of the Government in the year 1977; the 1st Petitioner had raised a dispute contending that these lands were not covered by the Estates Abolition Act, and the provisions of the A.P. Andhra Area Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 were alone applicable; he claimed to have purchased the land, from the wife of Sri P.V.G. Raju and his two daughters, in the year 1967 through an agreement of sale which was an unregistered document; he claimed that the said document was validated in the year 1996 and in 2003 pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to him; the purchase effected by the Petitioner in the year 1967 was not a genuine transaction since, as on the date of the so-called agreement of sale of 1967, there was no electronic typing in the country, and it was not available in Andhra Pradesh; the said document was typed on an electronic typewriter allegedly in 1967; there were no entries in the revenue records; in the absence of any entry, the Petitioners' claims were misconceived; against the order apportioning 1/3rd and 2/3rd share, the authorized officer had preferred L.R.A. No. 1 of 2007; likewise persons in actual possession and enjoyment of the land, in T.D. No. 1277, had also filed L.R.A. No. 2 of 2003; these ryots claimed that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in T.D. No. 1277 for more than a century; the agreement of sale, or the unregistered sale document, said to have been executed in favour of the Petitioner, is not binding on the Government, since the sale itself is not genuine; the original owner Sri P.V.G. Raju was alive, and he was the pattadar on the date of transaction; the executants was not the original owner of the land and, consequently, had no title to convey in favour of the Petitioners; L.R.A. No. 1 of 2007 and 2 of 2003 are pending adjudication; there were no entries in the revenue records with regards issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the Petitioners, including the 1-B register; ryots are in possession and enjoyment of the land for the last nearly 100 years; in terms of Rule 26, of the Rules made under the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, no pattadar pass book can be granted without such person being in possession of the lands; it is not in dispute that the Petitioners were never in possession of the lands; the pattadar pass books and title deeds, if any, issued in their favour is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; if the Petitioners have any grievance they should approach the competent Civil Court, and a Writ Petition is not maintainable; in 1967 the 1st Petitioner had only one son and the agreement reflects the name of other sons also as purchasers of the land; it is evident that the document drafted and typed was an after thought, and was ante-dated only for the purpose of selfish gain; the land was treated as an estate when the land was surrendered by Sri P.V.G. Raju in 1977; had there been a genuine agreement of sale or an unregistered sale document alienating the lands in favour of the Petitioners, these lands would have been deleted from the holdings of the declarants; the Petitioners made no claim during the years 1967-80; the revenue and cist records disclose that ryots were paying land revenue to the Government and, prior thereto, they were making payment to the Estate holder; these documents establish that the ryots are in actual physical possession of the land; and, even after taking over the lands as surplus lands, the ryots continue to remain in occupation till date.