K V SUBBAIAH Vs. COMR SETTLEMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the grant of ryotwari patta the writ petitioner has made an application under Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act to the Settle' ment Officer, Nellore. He filed the above application claiming himself to be in possession and occupation of an extent of Acs. 26-60 cents situate in Kammavaripalem village of Atmakur taluk in Nellore District. The petitinner had examined himself in support of his claim and filed Exs. P-1 and P-2 cist receipts. Exs. C-1 and C-2 adangal extracts were filed through C W -1 The Court examined the Village Karnam as Court witness C.W.I. The petitioner deposed that the cist receipts related to the Survey number with respect to which he made claim for grant of a ryotwari patta. He also deposed that he had been in possession of those lands prior to 1-7-1945. The Tahsildar in his counter opposed the grant of patta on some what an irrelevant ground not probably wholly innocently. He said that this land is needed to be given to some Agricultural Co-operative Societies and to be assigned to the landless poor. The Settlement Officer by his order dated 7-6-1970 granted patta to the extent of Acs. 26-60 cents to the writ petitioner.

(2.) Against the above order, the present respondents 3, 4 and 5 had filed under Section 5 of the Estates Abolition Act a revision petition to the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. The Director of Settlements had allowed that revision petition holding that the petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of patta. Tn a further revision before the Commissioner of Survey and Setllements at the instance of the present writ petitioner, the matter was examined in greater detail. The Commissioner held that all the cist receipts filed by the petitioner related to post-abolition period and should therefore be given no credence. He also held that the adangal for Fasli 1360 shows that the lands were assessed as waste under Sivaijama occupation of one of the present respondents (revision petitioner No. 1). He also disbelieved 1356 Fasli adangal and also ruled that it related to the period subsequent to 1-7-1945. His comment on cist receipts was that there was no evidence that they related to the schedule lands In fact, he said that the receipts were fabricated. For those reasons, the Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition filed by the present writ petitioner.

(3.) Against that order, the present writ petition has been filed.