LAWS(APH)-1961-11-25

DASARI SATYANARAYANA Vs. DASARI BAPAYYA

Decided On November 28, 1961
DASARI SATYANARAYANA Appellant
V/S
DASARI BAPAYYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition directing the 2nd respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh, from proceeding with the hearing of the revision petition in Memo. No. 574/J/61-2 dated 31-5-1961.

(2.) This petition is filed under the following circumstances: The petitioner applied for and obtained a patta from the zamindar of Vuyyur of a land of an extent of 2 acres in R. S. No. 183 in the village of Amudalapalli, and another patta was issued with respect to the balance of 6.2 cents in the same survey number. The petitioner claims to have been admitted into possession in 1944. though the two aforesaid pattas were issued on 26-6-1945 and 19-7-1946 respectively. The petitioner alleges that he has been cultivating the lands from 1944, and expending sums of money for reclaiming the lands and making them fit for cultivation. The Vuyyur Zamindari in which Amudalapalli village is situate was notified under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948, and taken over by the Government in 1950. The Estates Manager concerned passed an order under Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act holding that the petitioner was not prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta with respect to his holding in R. S. No. 183 except to the extent of 2 acres. In appeal by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, by an order dated 2-8-1954 reversed the order of the Estate Manager, and held that the petitioner having been inducted into possession in 1944 was not liable to be dispossessed. The 1st respondent Dasari Bapayya and others filed a revision against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer before the Collector, Krishna. By an order dated 26-12-1955, the Collector dismissed the revision petition. In the meantime, it is alleged, that in conformity with the Revenue Divisional Officers order the petitioners name was entered in the Amarkam and other relevant accounts of the village.

(3.) The Special Deputy Tahsildar would appear to have reported that the assignment in favour of the petitioner by the Zamindar of Vuyyur would fall under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act. Upon that report, the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nuzvid, made enquiries and held that the assignment by the Zamindar in favour of the petitioner was not one falling under the proviso to Section 11 of Act XXVI of 1948, and that the further proceedings in that behalf should be dropped. He held further that the assignee might apply for patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act, if so advised. Thereupon the petitioner applied for a patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act. In accordance with the prescribed procedure objections were called for. In the enquiry, the 1st respondent gave evidence on behalf of the objectors. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Nuzvid held that though on the evidence it would appear, the Zamindar had admitted the petitioner to possession in 1944, the land assigned was entered as "Budameru Poramboke" in the village A register, and that, therefore, it was not ryoti land. In that view, he held in and by his order dated 24-70-1956 that the petitioner was not entitled to the ryotwari patta. The petitioner filed a revision before the Settlement Officer, Masulipatam. In a long and considered order dated 2-5-1957, the Settlement Officer, reversed the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and directed the issue of a ryotwari patta to the petitioner. The 1st respondent Dasari Bapayya and others filed a revision petition before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, who allowed the petition, thereby setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer. The petitioner tiled a revision before the Board of Revenue. After considering the representations of the petitioner and Pasari Bapayya, who were both represented by counsel, the Board of Revenue held that the assignment in favour of the petitioner was made after collecting Nazarana, that the petitioner had been in occupation of the land for nearly 10 years, spending considerable amount for reclamation, that the land had ceased to serve the purpose for which it was intended, and therefore, there was no use in keeping it as "Budameru Poramboke", and that in the circumstances, the order of the Director of Settlements should be set aside and patta granted to the petitioner. Against thy orders of the Board of Revenue, the 1st respondent filed a revision petition before the Government, contending that R. S. No. 183 is a communal poramboke, and should not have been assigned to the petitioner. The Government held that with respect to the 2 acres in R. S. No. 183, for which patta was obtained on 26-6-1915, the order of the Board of Revenue had become final, but that in respect of the remaining 6-2 acres, for which patta was obtained subsequent to 1-7-1945, the order of the Board of Revenue was wrong as the case actually fell under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, and should have been dealt with as such. In that view, the Government set aside the order of the Board of Revenue. It also held that, inasmuch as there was no order of the Collector under Section 20 (a) of the Estates Land Act, before or offer the assignment, the petitioner could not be given a ryotwari patta with respect to the disputed land under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, but in view of the long possession of the petitioner on the land, it was for the Collector to consider the question of assignment of the land to the petitioner under ordinary darkhast rules. This order of the Government dated 11-12-1958 was made without notice to the petitioner.