DOKKA RAMABHADRUDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of our learned brother, Justice Basi Reddy, refusing to quash an order of the Board of Revenue, confirming an order of the Director of Settlements, who in his turn affirmed that of the Settlement Officer rejecting an application of the appellant for the grant of a ryotwari patta.

(2.) A few facts as emerging from the record and which are material for this enquiry may be stated. The subject-matter of this appeal are lands of an extent of Ac. 23-30 cents in the river Godavari. They were submerged in or about the year 1915 in the river Godavari and re-merged in or about 1932. Prior to the submersion the ryots in whose occupation of these lands were, abandoned them. In 1940 the Maharajah of Pithapuram, within whose estate these lands were situate, granted a patta in respect thereof to his daughter-in-law Rani Vedavathi Devi. She sold these lands to the appellant in the year 1949 for a consideration of Rs. 16,000 out of which Rs. 8,000 was paid to the vendor and the balance had to be paid. After the coming into force of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, the Assistant Settlement Officer suo motu conducted an enquiry under section 11 (a) of Madras Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and granted a rough patta to the appellant. When this matter came to the notice of the Settlement Officer, he issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing the grant of a rough patta should not be quashed as he acted without jurisdiction in holding an enquiry as to the person entitled to patta in regard to lanka lands, which fell under section 11 (b) of the Act, and which was beyond his competence. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Settlement 'Officer held that neither the appellant, nor his predecessor-in-interest was entitled to a rvotwari patta in regard to these lands as the requirements of section 11 (b) 6f the Act were not fulfilled.

(3.) It may be mentioned here in passing that the appellant did not raise an objection that these lands are not lanka lands and as such it was within the competence of the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry into the question as to who was entitled to the ryotwari patta.