REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. GAMPA LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal of Vizianagaram District, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in WP No. 16583 of 1997, dated 4. 11. 1998, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 3. 7. 1997 passed in RC No. 2312/91/a.

(2.) THE first appellant-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram by order dated 3. 7. 1997 set aside the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Field Check Officer), S. Kota, in granting patta in favour of the respondent herein m respect of the land in an extent of Ac. 1. 28 cents in old Survey No. 61, corresponding to resettlement No. 100/16. The respondent herein filed W. P. No. 16583 of 1997, questioning the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 3. 7. 1997, on the ground that she is the absolute owner of the land, an extent of Ac. 1. 26 cents in old Survey No. 61 of Denderu Village of Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, which was given as a service inam to one late Gampa Lingappa, who was mirasidar in the year 1909, by the then District Collector. As per proceedings in D. Dis No. 580, dated 2. 2. 1909, the said land was given as a 'servics inam' in recognition of 'mirasi service'. The said land has been in possession and enjoyment of the family of the said Lingappa and the respondent is the last heir of the family of the said Lingappa. It is further stated that all along, land revenue was paid to the respective authorities, but in the settlement records, a mistake has been crept in and the land was wrongly classified as 'poramboke'. In order to rectify the mistake that was noticed, the Government ordered final check operations in terms of the provisions of the Board's Standing Orders. A Special Tahsildar was appointed for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and to rectify the mistakes. It is stated that the Special Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry, ordered issuance of Ryotwari Patta No. 132 in favour of the respondent by following procedure contemplated under Section 34-D of Board's Standing Orders. According to Section 34-d of the Board's Standing Orders, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Field Check Officer) has called for the objections and after observing all the procedural formalities, ordered issuance of patta and correction of classification from 'poramboke' to 'ryotwari dry' in the year 1980. It is stated that out of the said land, the respondent has donated an extent of 15 cents in favour of the District Cooperative Society, in which a choultry was constructed and drinking water well and tank was also dug. It is stated that due to village politics a false petition was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the grant of patta in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings after lapse of 17 years on 3. 7. 1997, in exercise of his powers made under Section 34-D (iv ). It is the contention of the respondent that the said impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of the appellate powers under the said provision, after a lapse of 17 years, is therefore illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) THE respondent also filed a reply, but there was no answer as to how the said Sy. No. 100/16 correlated to Sy. No. 100/17. Admittedly, the subject-matter of the land is in respect of initial Sy. No. 61 and in re- settlement, it was correlated to Sy. No. 100 / 16. It appears that pursuant to the proceedings in P. No. 1/79 dated 14. 4. 1979 of the Recording Authority and Special Deputy Tahsildar, S. Kota, the said land of Ac. 1. 28 cents in Sy. No. 100/16 correlates to old Sy. No. 61 was recorded as 'patta land ' of the respondent herein. Thereafter in the revenue records, the said land was shown as if situated in Sy. No. 100/17. The Revenue Divisional Officer set aside those proceedings in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge without going into the merits of the case, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, only on the ground that as per Section 34-D of Board's Standing Orders, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of the Revenue Officer or against the changes effected by him in the revenue accounts as a result of re-survey, supplemental survey, without restricting to settlement, within 30 days from the date of communication of the orders or changes effected.