INDUKURI ANIL Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners feel aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in a revision filed under Section 7(d) of the A.P. Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), in so far as it has remanded the matter to the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent herein.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition are: The land in old survey No.3 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam Urban Mandal, admeasuring Acs.66.60 cents, was part of Zamindari estate of the Vizianagaram Zamindar. The estate holder gave it on permanent lease to one Namballa Family, way back in the year 1865. Thereafter, several transactions have taken place, and ultimately, an extent of Acs.10.00 was purchased by M/s.Jagannadha Raju, through a sale deed, dated 04.11.1969. The said Company obtained loan, from Bank of India, offering that property as security. Since the loan amount was not repaid, the Bank filed O.S.No.182 of 1972 in the Court of I Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit was decreed, and in E.P.No.121 of 1978, the property was brought to sale. M/s.V.Rama Murthy and Sons, of which the petitioners herein were partners, emerged as highest bidder and a sale certificate was issued in its favour, on 07.03.1980. At the time of dissolution of the firm, an extent of Acs.4.96 cents was allotted to the share of the petitioners and the same is said to have been assigned revised survey No.9/6.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the appellate authority, deciding the appeal or revision, cannot be itself grant ryotwari patta, and even if the contentions of applicant are accepted at such levels, the matter has invariably to go back to the primary authority for consideration. He contends that, even if the two aspects, referred to above, are held in favour of the petitioners, other questions, such as whether the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title were in possession of the land, as on the notified date, identity of the land, the present state of affairs etc., need to be examined.