LAWS(APH)-2009-4-12

ELURU PRAKASAM Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ACQUISITION

Decided On April 08, 2009
ELURU PRAKASAM Appellant
V/S
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ACQUISITION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the owners of land in different survey numbers of kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore District. They feel aggrieved by the grant of ryotwari pattas in favour of respondents 4 to 8 under the provisions of the andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 141/1 and 141/3 of that Village (for short 'the land' ).

(2.) THE land was originally held by Sarvabhotla family. Late Dega Seshu Reddy, the father of respondents 4 and 5, and his sister, Yanamala Ramanamma, together with certain others, purchased the same, through sale deeds, dated 26. 07. 1958. It was part of an Inam. Even before any steps could be taken in respect of the land for grant of ryotwari pattas, the Tahsildar, Nellore District, the third respondent herein, issued a notification, dated 06. 06. 1995, under Section 2-A of the Act, declaring the land, as tank. Dega Seshu Reddy and others filed w. P. No. 11174 of 1995 against the said notification. The writ petition was allowed, on the ground that the affected parties were not issued notices. Subsequently, orders were passed by the third respondent on 23. 08. 2007, declaring the land as "inam Dry Arable". Thereafter, the third respondent granted ryotwari pattas in respect of the land in favour of respondents 4 to 8.

(3.) CLAIMING that there existed an irrigation tank over the land and that their lands are part of ayacut of that tank, the petitioners filed a revision before the first respondent. The revision was rejected on 26. 05. 2008, on the ground that the petitioners had to avail the remedy of appeal. Thereupon, they filed W. P. No. 19444 of 2008 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 28. 09. 2008 and the first respondent was directed to hear the revision. The revision was dismissed on merits by the first respondent on 27. 01. 2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition.