E VENUGOPAL CHETTY Vs. DIST COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri passed in his proceedings ROC.No. 3901/59 dated 19-4-1961 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land measuring Ac. 5.18 cents in T.S.No. 32 and a further extent of Ac. 7.00 in S.No. 302 of Tirupathi Revenue Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner sought such direction against the official respondents, namely the District Collector, Chittoor District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Later on an application filed by the proposed respondents under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., they were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the writ petition vide order dated 8-7-1998.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner statedthat the petitioner was granted ryotwari patta to an extent of Ac. 5.18 cents in T.S.No. 32 and another extent of Ac. 7.00 in S.No. 302 of Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, under the Inams Abolition Act in proceedings Roc.No. 3901/59, vide order dated 19-4-1961. He stated that the said ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner after due enquiry and after perusing all the relevant records. The petitioner was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the above said land and against the said order dated 19-4-1961 passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, no appeal was preferred and as such, the said order became final. But the said proceedings dated 19-4-1961 were not being implemented by the official respondents 1 and 2 in spite of several representations made by the petitioner and in those circumstances, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.Nos. 2783/92 and 1939/92 along with other persons before this Court for implementing those proceedings. In the said writ petitions, the official respondents did not file any counter and ultimately, this Court vide order dated 27-4-1992 disposed of W.P.No. 2783/92 and by another order dated 15-4-1993, disposed of W.P.No. 1939/92, directing the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and others for implementing those proceedings of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dated 19-4-1961 in proceedings Roc.No. 3901 /59. In spite of the representations filed by the petitioner in the month of May, 1996 for implementation of the said orders of this Court, the official respondents have not implemented the same. From this it follows that the official respondents are not going to implement the said proceedings, unless there is a positive direction by this Court. The proceedings are of the year 1961 and due to the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is deprived of his legal right to get his name incorporated in the revenue records and as such, the petitioner is put to great loss and hardship. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed as I have already stated above, for implementing the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri dated 19-4-1961 in proceedings Roc.No. 3901/59, in respect of the lands for which the petitioner has been granted patta under Inams Abolition Act.

(3.) By filing a counter, the official respondents denied the allegation made by the petitioner. In the counter, it is stated that the land Sy.No. 302 to an extent of Ac. 78.44 cents is classified as Inam Dry in Tirupati (non-municipal) village and there is also an entry that the said land is converted into Government dry vide orders under the mams Abolition Act in Roc. No. 3901/59 dated 19-4-1961. The Inam 'B' Register reveals the names of Panguluru Balagurunatham Setty, Panguluru Ramaswamy Setty and Kuppu Ramaswamy Setty in respect of S.No. 302 with an extent of Ac. 78.44 cents in Inam Patta No. 2927 and the said entries further show that in terms of the Inams Abolition Act and in pursuance of the proceedings in Roc. No. 3901/59 dated 19-4-1961, the lands in S.No. 302 measuring Ac. 38.25 cents, in S.No.719 Ac. 14.43 cents, in S.No. 720 Ac. 11.33 cents and in S.No. 721 Ac. 14.43, in all Ac. 78.44 cents were converted into the Government dry lands. It is further stated that the land S.No. 302 has been sub-divided and the remarks were carried out by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar himself on 18-6-1961 and in these circumstances, the case of the petitioner that himself and P. Subrahmanyam Setty were granted Ac. 7.00 and Ac. 38.25 cents respectively in S.No. 302 is false. In fact, W.P.Nos. 2783/1992 and 1939/92, this Court disposed of by directing official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Meanwhile, there was a suit filed by one P. Veeraswamy in O.S.No. 102/92 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati claiming title over the land in S.Nos. 296 and 302 of Tirupathi, contending that Sri Panguluru Kurruramaswamy has purchased the land from his elder brother and from one of the inam pattadars Sri P. Balagurunadham Setty and also from Smt. Panguluru Ponnamma w/o Chenchaiah and as such he became the owner of 3/4th share in Sy.No. 302 out of Ac. 78.44 cents along with S.No. 296 measuring Ac.4.27 cents etc. The Collector, Chittoor has filed a written statement in that suit stating that the said property said to be owned by late P. Kuppuramaswamy Setty vested with the Government under the Inams Abolition Act, since he died intestate and issueless. The said suit is pending before the Subordinate Court with respect to the same S.No. 302 of Tirupathi. In the counter it is further stated that regarding T.S.No. 32, the petitioner was never granted patta and the said land is classified as Government Dry in the inam 'A' register of Tirupathi and as such the principle of inam tenure could not apply to the land and the said land now is under the occupation of S.V. Government Polytechnic College and the claim of the petitioner is baseless. It is further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner are fabricated and bogus and the petitioner was not granted any patta by Inams Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1961 or at any point of time as per records. Therefore, the question of implementing the said order does not arise.