R BALASUBRAMANYAM REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are interlinked in that they raise common questions of law for determination, and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be the tenants of 54 acres in S.No. 234 and 18 acres in S.No. 246. Tiruchanur was originally notified as an estate falling under the Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947. One of the inamdars-Swami Hathiramjee-filed O.S. No. 4/1955 in the Sub Court, Chittoor for a declaration that Tiruchanur is a mam estate and, therefore, the application of the Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 is illegal. That suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by the Collector-A.S. No. 52/1957 was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter the Government gave effect to the judgment by making a publication in the official Gazette in 1963. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor conducted an enquiry under Sec. 3 of the A.P. Andhra Area Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as 1956 Act, and recorded a finding that the lands in Tiruchanur were minor inams-inam lands in an inam village. Consequently enquiry under Sec. 7 was also taken up and according to the petitioners pattas were granted under Sec. 7 of the Act to several tenants including the petitioners. The State Government represented by the Collector preferred a revision petition under Sec. 14-A to the Commissioner questioning the grant of pattas on several grounds. The Commissioner issued show-cause notice to the petitioners as to why the pattas granted earlier in the year 1980 should not be cancelled. Challenging the constitutional validity of Sec. 14-A several writ petitions were filed in this Court - W.P.No. 8252/82 was one such. The writ petitions were dismissed by this Court holding that Sec. 14-A does not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity. The Commissioner/Inams Deputy Tahsildar started a denovo enquiry in 1983. The petitioners contend that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the third respondent in W.P.No. 2661 of 1987, issued notices in Form No. 1 under Sec. 3 of the Act and they appeared before that authority and submitted their claims in respect of an extent of 54 acres in S.No. 234 part and 18 acres in S.No. 246 part. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar rendered a decision on 22-9-83 holding that the "lands claimed by the petitioners i.e., S. Nos 234 and 246 were inam lands in inam village and not held by the institu tion." The decision was published in the Chittoor District Gazette on 3-9-84. the same Gazette on page 20 another notification was published which is to the effect that the lands in S.Nos. 234 and 246 were classified as Pedda Cheruvu Poramboke and Tank Poramboke which according to the petitioner was due to a mistake,

(3.) W.P.No. 2661/87 was filed on 2-3-87. The petitioners in this writ petition contend that after the decision rendered by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in September, 1983, it was incumbent upon him to pass final orders under Sec. 7 for granting ryotwari pattas. They apprehend that their possession would be disturbed by the Government and they allege that steps are being taken to allot the land to the Social Welfare Department defeating their rights. Therefore, they are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent -Inams Deputy Tahsildar- to proceed with the enquiry for final determination of their rights under Sec. 7 of the Act.