MOHSIN S MEHDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of the writ petition assailing the orders passed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in an appeal preferred under Section 15 (2) of the AndrhaPradesh (Andrha Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 194 (referred for brevity hereinafter as "the Estates Abolition Act") upholding the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 30-9-1958 has made the appellant to prefer this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case as appear from the judgment under appeal and as contended and presented by the appellant before the appellate Tribunal was that he was an absolute owner of Ac.3-75 cents of land pertaining to R.S.No. 10/8 in Kancherapalem village within the Municipal limits of Visakhapatnam. The village was part of Allipuram Zamin Estate which was abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act 1951. The land had been purchased by the appellant through registered sale deeds in 1948 from two vendors who in tum had purchased the same in 1919 from one Basava Appalaswami and his sons under registered sale deeds. Basava Appalaswami was a permanent lessee of the land having obtained the lease of the land in 1909 from one Vambala Katchanna. This land and some other lands around it was requisitioned by the Military authorities during the World War n but was de-requisitioned in 1946 and handed over to the vendors of the appellant. Compensation for the acquisition was paid by the Govemment to the predecessor-in-title. At the time of Military occupation a survey had been conducted by those authorities and the land purchased by the appellant had been assigned in S.No. 71/6. After the estate was taken over by the Governments urvey was conducted and the land was assigned the number RS.No. 10/8. The appellant's case is to have been in continuous possession of the land since his purchase having been put in possession by his vendor sand to have been paying the Municipal taxes and the non-agricultural assessment taxes. In the year 1968 he leased out a part of land to Jeevanraj Patel, respondent No. 2 in the appeal, for a period of ten years under a registered lease deed.

(3.) The land was part of Inam land of which the original owners (Nambala people) were the kamams of the village. Apart from service Inams, they also owned other Inam lands and in the pre-Abolition Revenue accounts other Inam. Ithad been all through assumed that the Inam land was a minor one to which the Estates Abolition Act did not apply. But in a suo motu enquiry conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 15(l)coupled with Section 12 of the Estates Abolition Act, the officer passed orders on30-9-1958 holding the land to be Darimala Inam for which no ryotwari patta was needed to be given to the appellant as he was the landholder, and there was no cultivation of the land muchless personal cultivation by the appellant He demarcated the land asassessed-waste in the Revenue records. The order was not to the knowledge of the appellant for which he had applied for grant of Ground Rent Patta which was granted in 1960 to him by the Assistant Settlement Officer for S.No. 10/8. But subsequently a proceeding was intiated issuing notice to the appellant and after hearing and conducting enquiry and considering the documents filed by the appellant and others the Settlement Officer cancelled the patta on 2-2-1965. A revision carried against the order before the Director of Settlement failed and the second revision before the Board of Revenue also suffered the same fate with the Board observing that if the Inam was a minor one, the appellant can approach the appropriate authority for grant of patta under the Inams Abolition Act. The appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Tahsildar under the Inams Abolition Act to declare the land as T.D.Inam instead of assessed-waste, as according to the Board of Revenue instructions, the Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to classify minor Inams as assessed-waste. The matter was referred by the Tahsildar to the Collect or who in turn referred the matter to the Assistant Director of Survey. The later officer verified the boundaries of the land and found that previous S.No. 71/6 corresponds to R.S.No. 10/8. It is the appellant's case that the officer did not verify the boundaries of all the surrounding lands and the lands covered by T.D.No. 13. In the mean time since'B' memos were booked against flie appellant in respect of the land after cancekllation of Ground rent patta, the respondent No.2 approached the authority for assignment of the land in his favour. To safeguard his rights the appellant made an application to the Settlement Officer, Vishakapatnam on 14-5-1977 for a copy of the order of 30-9-1958 but the application was returned to him stating that the file was sent to the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam and that the certified copy of the order may be obtained from there. The appellant applied before the Tahsildar but he application was returned on 27-6-1979stating that the file was not available in that office. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No.5178 of 1979 challenging the orders. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the authority to supply copy of the order to the appellant But even then no copy was supplied to him. When the appellant filed appeal before the Estates Abolition Tribunal it was returned for non-filing of the impugned order. The appellant thereafter filed W.A.No. 191 of 1980 and this Court directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal even without filing of the certified copy of the order. The appeal was entertained under the orders of this Court. Before the Tribunal the appellant examined himself and filed his document and the respondents also filed documents. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.