C.V. RAMANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus and seeking a declaration that the order dtd. 12/10/2018 passed by the 4th respondent under Sec. 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 with respect to the petitioner's land in Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 6.

(3.) As per the submissions of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, the petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.8-52 cents in R.S. No. 17 of Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner's predecessors in interest were in possession and enjoyment of the land from 1914, in the pre-abolition period also. It is stated that a private tank called Venkappa tank was dug in the land. It is asserted that this tank is used only for the purpose of irrigation of the land measuring Ac.8-52 cents and not any another land. Since during the resurvey operation the tank was wrongly noted as Government Poramboke Tank petitioner made an application for change of classification of the land from Government Poramboke to zeroythi. Despite clear reports from the authorities that the tank had no ayacut or that it is in the list of tanks of that area no proper action was taken. Earlier also it is submitted that the 1st respondent issued orders dtd. 3/5/2013 permitting the change of classification from the tank to zeroythi. This was followed by further Memo dtd. 14/8/2015 by the 3rd respondent to implement the earlier orders. However, as per the learned senior counsel despite the verification the respondent authorities took a "U" turn and again wanted to reconsider the issue. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 3192 of 2017 and this Court by its orders directed the respondents to complete the process of implementation of the Government Orders. Thereafter, due to failure to comply with this order a contempt has been initiated and ultimately the 6th respondent was also sentenced to imprisonment. A Writ Appeal was also filed in W.A. No. 548 of 2018. Contempt Appeal was also filed against the order in the contempt case. Thereafter, in this situation, the 1st respondent issued an order directing the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent under Sec. 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 for grant of ryotwari patta. This order was considered by the Division Bench of the Court which passed orders in W.A. No. 548 of 2018 directing the 4th respondent to receive the application and to process it. Learned counsel submits that by this time the Government was aware that the tank was purely a private tank and that the application before the 4th respondent was therefore virtually for the purpose of implementing the order and to grant ryotwari patta. However, contrary to the same and contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is submitted that the impugned order is passed on 12/10/2018 holding that the land is not a zeroythi land and is a tank filled with water. The impugned order stated that in view of the earlier directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to protect material resources, this change in the classification cannot be allowed. Learned senior counsel also states that the rules of natural justice were flouted when this impugned order is passed. He draws the attention of this Court to the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present the case and the impugned order was passed without even considering the issues raised in the earlier orders on the subject. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the Memo dtd. 16/7/2018 issued by the Special Chief Secretary, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the land an extent of Ac.8-52 cents is not a Government tank, but is a private land belonging to the applicant. He points out that the Special Chief Secretary clearly stated that the applicant is entitled for granting of ryotwari patta. Therefore, the Joint Collector was directed to take the claim from the applicant and pass orders. Learned senior counsel points out that this memo is taken note of by the Division Bench and it was noted that the Tank is not a Government tank, but is a private tank belonging to the applicant. Thereafter, the direction was given to make an application. Learned senior counsel also points out to the earlier investigation made in the very same issue by the time of application to reclassification, and in particular, he draws the attention of this Court to the Tahsildar letter dtd. 22/5/2010 wherein he directed the Executive Engineer to inspect the tank. The report shows that the tank is a private tank and the improvement of the holding. The letter of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, dtd. 17/7/2010 is also highlighted, wherein he pointed out that the tank is not receiving water from any sources except rain water. It is clarified that there is no ayacut also. Lastly, learned senior counsel also points out that the letter of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, dtd. 19/6/2012, wherein after considering all the earlier documents he came to the conclusion that the ancestors of the petitioner dug tank and it is an improvement only. It is clearly stated that the Tank was noted as a Government poramboke tank by mistake. It is also made very clear in this letter that there is no ayacut under this tank. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned single Judge In W.P. No. 6747 of 1996 and argues that the said order clearly applicable to the facts of the case.