STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M A KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the State against the judgment and decree of the 4th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 23rd August, 1960, decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff wherein for declaration that he is the owner and entitled to continue in possession of the land known as Peda Kanchaiah bearing S. No. 105/L to 103/16 situate in Kotrepalli Village in Vikarabad Taluq, and for injuunciton restraining the defendant-Government from interferring with hii rights.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the suit land, which was a pasture land, was granted on pacta to him in 1340 F by the then Jagirdar of the Village. The Jagir Tahsildar was intimated of this graut and pursuant to it the directed mutation of the patta in his (plaintiff's) .name. Eversince, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land after paying the land revenue. Survey and Settlement for the village of Koterpalli was started in 1353 F, By mistake, the Survey authorities showed the suit land as 'gairan1 in the records and omitted his name in the relevant column showing i the name of the pattadar. On coming to know of this, he approached the settlement authorities and got the due correction made.

(3.) While so, the Collector of Medak District directed an enquiry into the the matter, notwithstanding the report of the Tahsildar confirming the possession of he plaintiff and his rights to the suit land, and ordered that the patta could not stand in his name. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, hejcarried the matter up to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue decided against him. His Revision Petition and Reviw were both dismissed by the Revenue Minister. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Hyderabad, but. thinking that a regular suit before a Civil Court was the proper remedy, he withdrew his writ petition. He, therefore, wants a declaration that he is the pattadar and owner of the suit property and is enti tied to continue in possession, TFe defendant-Government denied that patta was ever granted to the plaintiff in 1340 F. by the then Jagirdar, and stated that the petition for grant of patta was ante-dated. The defendant, inter alia, denied that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the land and stated that the proceedings of the Survey and Settlement Department do not give any right to the plaintiff, and that the order of the Collector was valid. On the above averments, the trial Court framed the following issues; 1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the land? 2. Whether'the cancellation of patta dated 7-7-1953 is valid in law and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?. 4. To what relief? Both the parties led evidence, documentary and oral. The learned Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, he decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal is on behalf of the defendant.