NISTHALA VENKATA RAMANAMMA Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two persons-Theegala Satyanarayana Setti and Theegala Surya Rao on 30th July, 1980, tinder section 11 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (the Act) applied to the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam for patta in respect of R. S. No. 6/1 measuring Ac. 1-55 cents Kancherlapalem village. While the inquiry was pending on 17th November, 1980. N. V. Ramanamma lodged this writ petition to interdict the Settlement Officer from considering the application. She avers, Kancharlapalem village was taken over under the Act. Settlement rates in the villages were introduced on 1st July, 1960, and that she made an application under section 11 (a) and was accorded patta of land covering Ac. 15-16 cents in R.S. Nos 6/1 and 2 on 16th August, 1964. Her claim to the extent of Ac. 11-58 cents in R.S. No. 6/3 was rejected. The order of the Settlement Officer on 16th August, 1964, was the subject of two revisions before the Director of Settlements: one by N. V. Ramanamma questioning refusal to giant patta in R.S. No. 6, the other by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam granting patta of Jand in R.S. 6/1 and 2. The two revisions were dismissed on 30th April, 1965.

(2.) Ramanamma contends, having regard to the orders passed by the Settlement Officer on 16th August, 1964, and by the Director of Settlements on 30th April, 1965, the application made by the Theegala Satyanarayana Setti and Theegala Surya Rao is not maintainable'. No patta can be granted to them under section 11 of the Act. No inquiry be held on the petition dated 30th July, 1980. The petition is not maintainable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Muddada Chayanna v. Karnam Narayana and others, is cited to support the contention and also referred to two Full Bench decisions, one by the three Judges in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopala, another five Judges in H. Mumswarm Naidu and others v. R. Venkata Reddy and others.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the conclusions in the former Full Bench case were disapproved by the Supreme Court in Muddalla Chayanna v Karnam Varayana, and contends the Settlement Office in the instant case, has no jurisdiction to inquire the application made to him on 30th July, 1980.