K. NARASAREDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Safyauarayana Raju J., declining the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus "directing the Andhra. State, represented by the Collector of Ncllore district to forhear from taking over possession or interfering with the Petitioner's possession in respect of his lands" in Ramanujapuram shotrium, Kavali taluk.

(2.) THE facts are simple, Ramanujapuram shotrium. a pre -settlement under -tenure estate in the Kalahasti Zamindary was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Reward) Act (XXVI of 1940), with effect on and front 7 -9 -1950 and taken over by the Government. The Petitioner and another are in possession and enjoyment of certain lands 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 25 -2 -1890. The sale comprised two items the first described as "the land known as Thoorpu beedu' and the second described as 'wet land under the tank bund." In regard to the first item, there is the further description that it is Sagu Boedu (Cultivable dry land) of a certain extent inclusive of "the forest, stone -quarries, etc." and described a,", having been already in the possession and enjoyment of the purchaser by way of cowls. The Appellant claiming to be in the position of a land -holder presented an application under Section 14 of the Act for tho grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of 330 out of 380 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 -tenure estate. The Settlement Officer he'd 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 Estates Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor confirmed his order. It agreed with the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer that 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 ryotwari patta is to be made under Section 14 of the Act. It 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 toe 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:

(3.) AS already stated, that petition was dismissed by our learned brother.