D AJANTHAMMA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in R.Dis (El)/22429/93, dated 24.10.1998, as illegal, unjust and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore original mutation and entries in 10(1) revenue account in respect of the lands admeasuring Acs.31.90 in survey No.53 and Acs.9.40 in survey No.55 (hereafter called, the subject land) of Umamaheswarapuram, now situated in Katuru Village, Buchinaidukandriga Mandal in Chittoor District. The first petitioner is mother and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughter and son respectively of the first petitioner. They are statedly legal heirs of one D. Narappa Reddy. By reason of the impugned order, the settlement patta issued under A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for brevity) to the vendor of Narappa Reddy became ineffective, as a result of which the petitioners' alleged title to the subject land was not recognized. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) The brief chronology of events leading to filing of the writ petition is as follows. According to the petitioners, the subject land was originally under the possession of Arani Ramana Reddy, who obtained a patta from the estateholder. On an application made by him, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, by proceedings, dated 1.10.1965, issued a ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act to Arani Ramana Reddy. It is the case of the petitioners that the said patta was implemented and mutation effected on 10.10.1969. Aggrieved by this, G. Subbamma and others filed writ petition being W.P. No.1290 of 1971 seeking a direction from this Court to the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the revision petition filed by them. The same was disposed of observing that the Settlement Officer may dispose of the revision petition, which is pending for a longtime. In the meanwhile, the Director of Settlements (DoS) sought information for initiating action under Section 5(2) of the Act (suo motu revision). The Joint Collector submitted report to DoS opining that no revision need be taken up. In 1983, the revenue authorities issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Encroachment Act, for brevity) to Narappa Reddy to show-cause as to why he should not be evicted from the lands in survey Nos.53 and 55. The recipient of the notice submitted explanation and the competent authority passed an order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act directing eviction. Assailing the same, Narappa Reddy filed W.P. No.9403 of 1983. By order, dated 24.11.1987, this Court set aside the notice/order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Tottambedu, to enquire into the claim and pass orders in accordance with law. After the said order was passed, the second respondent, it is alleged, changed the entries in the revenue records showing the subject land as Government land. Aggrieved by the same, Narappa Reddy filed W.P. No.14572 of 1993 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 11.6.1997 giving liberty to Narappa Reddy to file application before the revenue authorities concerned for redressal while observing that the question raised in the writ petition can be decided only by revenue authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners herein as legal representatives of Narappa Reddy filed a miscellaneous petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, for restoration of original mutation and entries in 10(1) accounts of the subject land. By impugned order, the Joint Collector rejected the request of the petitioners for mutation and restoration of entries in revenue records.

(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent opposing the writ petition along with necessary material. At the time of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) has placed before this Court the original record pertaining to the case. The case of the Government is to the effect that Katuru Village, which is an estate village was taken over by Government in 1952 under the provisions of the Act but the patta allegedly issued to Arani Ramana Reddy on 1.10.1965 is a fake patta. No ryotwari patta was granted to him. There is another file with same S.R. Number relating to S.No. 120 of Brahmanapalle Village of Srikalahasti Taluk, and therefore, the question of treating the subject land of Katuru as patta land does not arise. The land in survey No.53 admeasuring Acs.31.40 is cattle grazing ground, which was used for the common purpose by the villagers and the land admeasuring Acs.9.40 in survey No.55 is Kalangi River Poramboke. Both the survey numbers are Poramboke lands, which are being used by the villagers, and the patta produced by the petitioners is a fake one. It is the further case of the respondents that though initially the patta allegedly issued by Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, was implemented by Tahsildar, Srikalahasti, subsequently, the Tahsildar cancelled the implementation order treating the land as Poramboke as per the orders of the District Collector, dated 28.4.1976. It is also stated in the counter that the land was inspected on 30.6.2004 when it was found that there is no irrigation well or motor and that the land is uncultivable area of Acs. 15.00 and cultivable waste area of Acs. 15.45 and that only an extent of Acs.0.95 is under cultivation, where paddy crop is raised. The land in survey No.55 is in the midst of Kalangi River and is not fit for cultivation.