M. SURYA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent to include the land in R.S.No.268/2 in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, 269/2 an extent of Ac. 13.68 cents, 269/4 in an extent of Ac.0.87 cents, 270/3 an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, 271/4 an extent of Ac.3.01 cents, 262/2P an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents, 262/3 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 262/4 an extent of Ac.0.28 cents, 265 an extent of Ac.4.66 cents, 266/2 an extent of Ac.0.23 cents, 266/3 an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, 266/4 an extent of Ac.0.51 cents, 266/5 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/6 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/7 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/8 an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, 266/9 an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/10 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/11 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/12 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, 266/13 an extent of Ac.0.14 cents, 266/14 an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/15 an extent of Ac.2.42 cents, 122 Part an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of Pandrangi village of Padmanabham Mandal, in the Prohibited List under Sec. 22A (1)(C) of the Registration Act even though the petitioners are the owners of the lands.

(2.) As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the case of the petitioners is that after the enactment of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1956, the Tahsildhar has instituted proceedings under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and issued a notification under Sec. 3(3) of the Act and the same was published in Visakhapatnam District Gazette dtd. 11/8/1960 holding that the lands in T.D.No.1251 are Inam lands situated in an Inam Village and are not held by institution. The decision taken by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar became final as no appeal was filed against the said decision as contemplated under Sec. 3(4) of the Act. Subsequently, the Inams Deputy Tahsildhar passed an order on 30/1/1961 holding that vendors of the petitioners are entitled for Ryotwari Patta and granted Ryotwari Patta in Form No.VIII on 30/1/1961. The Ryotwari Patta granted in favour of vendors of the petitioner become final and thereafter the petitioners have purchased said property in the year 2000 and are in continuous possession of the same.

(3.) Based on the acquiring right over the property, on the application made by the petitioners the 4th respondent-Tahsildar has mutated the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and granted pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. As against which, the 5th respondent filed a Revision before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending RP.No.47/2017. While that being so, on enquiry, the Sub Registrar, Bheemunipatnam, with regard to the valuation of the property in respect of the above survey numbers, informed to the petitioners that on the basis of the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Endowments, the above lands are included in the prohibited list and in view of the inclusion, the properties cannot be transferred in favour of 31 parties. It is submitted that the action of the 2nd respondent in addressing a letter to the Registration Department for inclusion of the lands in Rs. No.268/2 an extent of Ac 0.60 cents, 269/2 an extent of Ac.13.68 cents, 269/4 an extent of Ac.0.87 cents, 270/3 an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, 271/4 an extent of Ac.3.01 cents, 262/2P an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, 262/3 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 262/4 are extent of Ac.0.28 cents, 265 an extent of Ac. 4.66 cents, 266/2 an extent of Ac.0.23 cents, 266/3 an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, 266/4 an extent of Ac.0.51 cents, 266/5 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/6 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/7 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/8 an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, 266/9 a extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/10 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/11 an extent Ac.0.12 cents, 266/12 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, 266/13 an extent of Ac.0.14 cents, 266/14 an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/15 an extent of Ac.2.42 cents, 122 Part an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of Pandrangi village of Padmanabham Mandal in the prohibited list is not legal and the same is arbitrary.