KOONAM NARASA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhimasankaram. This Appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju J. declining the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus "directing the Andra State, represented by the Collector of Nellore district to forbear from taking over possession or interfering with the petitioner's possession in respect of his lands" in Ramanujapuram Shrotrium, Kavali taluk.

(2.) The facts are simple. Ramanujapuram shrotrium, a pre-settlement undertenure estate in the Kalahasti Zamindary was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 with effect on and from 7-9-1950 and taken over by the Government. The petitioner and another are in possession and enjoyment of certain land within that estate by virtue of a purchase made by an ancestor of theirs in the year 1890 from the Zamindar under a registered sale deed dated the 25th of February of that year. The sale comprised two itemsthe first described as "the land known as Thoorupu- beedu' and the second described as "we! land under the tank bund". In regard to the first item, there in the further description that it is Sagu Beedu (cultivable dryland) of a certain extent inclusive of "the fotest, stonequarries etc" and described as having been already in the possession and enjoyment of the purchaser by way of a cowle. The appellant claiming to be in the position of landholder presented an application under Section 14 of the Act (or the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of 330 out of 360 acres, which is the total extent of these lands to the Assistant Settlement Officer. That section provides for the grant of a ryotwari patta to a land-holder in respect of lands in an under-tennure estate. The Settlement Officer held that the land " is a pure kancha used for the purpose of grazing cattle " and as there is no provision in the Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of such lands, he rejected the application. On appeal, the Estate Abolition Tribunal Chittoot confirmed his order. They agreed with the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer thar the land in question was never cultivated and never intended to be cultivated and as such cannot be brought under any one of the categories mentioned in section 13 with reference to which the grant of a ryotwati patta is to be made under section 14 of the Act.

(3.) They also observed that neither section 19 nor section 20 would apply. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. The position now taken up by him in the petition is that the sale deed evidences a transaction by which the then land-holder sold the lands to his family for a non-agricultural purpose and that therefore the family is entitled to the benefit of either section 19 or section 20 of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows :