GUNTREDDI PARISINAIDU Vs. TAHSILDAR PARVATHIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners challenge certain proceedings of the respondents taken under the Madras Land Encroachment Act for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in their possession.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they were cultivating tenants with occupancy rights of the lands situated in several villages which are said to be situated in estates coming within the purview of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It Is unnecessary to refer to the other factual details as the question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is within a narrow compass. The petitioners stated that in recent survey and settlement operations the lands were Wrongly classified as unassessed waste, that the petitioners filed applications under section 11 (a) of the Act for the grant of Ryotwari Pattas. It appears that all these applications were taken on file by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, and were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by limitation. But the Settlement Officer did not inquire into the merits of the claims of the petitioners or as to the nature of the tenure of the lands. The contention of the petitioners is that the Settlement Officer erred in dismissing the applications on the ground of limitation, when there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder prescribing any limitation for the filing of applications under section 11 (a) of the Act.

(3.) The Assistant Secretary (Settlements) , Board of Revenue, filed a common counter affidavit in all these writ petitions stating that the Settlement Officer had given elaborate reasons for dismissing the applications and that it was clear from the Settlement Officer's order that about the nature of the lands in dispute, there was elaborate enquiry by various officers at various stages and as a result of such enquiry these lands were classified as assessed waste or porambokes and not lands in possession of anybody and that no one is entitled to patta for these lands. It" is further stated that several steps were taken after the estates were abolished, and that after the completion of the survey the field staff of the settlement department conducted field enquiry to ascertain the nature of the various lands and the claims of various persons therein with reference to the survey records prepared by the survey department, and rough pattas were prepared in the names of various persons showing the lands which are included in their holdings and ought to have been included in their holdings and that rough pattas were duly published and kept with the Village Officers and also in conspicuous places in the villages for the information of all persons interested and that the rough patta objection hearing officer would visit the village and receive all representations and objections from various persons with reference to the rough pattas already prepared and published and thereafter give his decision on the material available, and that an appeal was provided" to the Assistant Settlement Officer or the Settlement Officer, and it is only after the consideration of the records and representations that pattas were finalised and regular pattas were issued. It was further averred that the Government issued notification introducing ryotwari settlements and that the procedure mentioned above was fully followed and that opportunity was given till 3151 October, 1963 to make representations, but the petitioners did not utilise the same and that section 11 of the Act does not provide for making any application for grant of a ryotwari patta and that an enquiry could also be held mo motu under section 11 of the Act, but the petitioners did not file applications within a reasonable time and therefore, their applications were rightly rejected by the Settlement Officer.