T MANNEYYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SETTLEMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri K.V.Varada Rao the 4th respondent, since died, his legal representatives respondents 5 to 9 have been brought on record. Sri K.V.Varada Rao purchased Ac.13.6 cts in survey No.104 and Ac.6.26 cts in survey No.105/8, situated in Upparapalem, hamlet of Mangalam by a registered sale deed dated January 9,1931 an inam estate, within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act, from the landlord Sri K.Srinivasa Chary, who, in turn, purchased from one Peda Venkata Reddy, the inamdar. Sri Srinivasa Chary purchased the land from Peda Venkata Reddy under a registered permanent patta dated October 11,1929. While so, the estate was notified under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 26 of 1948 (for short the Act), on October 1, 1951. Thereafter, K.V.Varada Rao applied for grant of ryotwari patta on December 11, 1962. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor made an endorsement that he would conduct an enquiry in respect of Survey No.104. The 4th respondent has renewed his application for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey No.105/8, after disposal of the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey No.104. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta to the 5th respondent on December 30, 1965. On appeal, it was confirmed and also on a further writ petition this court upheld the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey No.104. While so, the petitioner appears to have filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta under Section ll(a) of the Act and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor granted to the petitioner the ryotwari patta on November 29, 1965. There does not appear to have been any notice given to the 4th respondent before the grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner. After the disposal of the proceedings in terms of the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated December 11,1962 the 4th respondent renewed his application for grant of ryotwari patta by his proceedings dated March 18, 1966, to which the petitioner objected by his objections dated August 29,1966 that he was already granted ryotwari patta under Section ll(a) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore by which date proceedings were transferred to him, has dropped the proceedings on October 31,1972. Then revision was filed against this in RP 90/73 before the Director of Settlement. The Director has allowed it and remitted the matter by his proceedings dated August 22,1975. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the claim for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey No.105/8. The Settlement Officer by his proceedings dated January 29, 1977 granted ryotwari patta only to an extent of 2 acres and 96 cents out of survey No.105/8 and refused grant of patta for the balance land. Aggrieved thereby, the 4th respondent filed R.P. 19/78 before the Director of Settlement. The Director refused to grant patta to the extent of 3 acres and 29 cents which was granted to the petitioner. Again the 4th respondent filed a further revision which was also dismissed on October 4, 1982. But on a further revision, the Commissioner of Land Revenue by his proceedings dated May 11,1983 allowed the revision, set aside the grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner dated November 29, 1965, and remitted to the Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry into the rival claims under Section 56(1) of the Act. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Rangacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner that the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act to the petitioner having allowed to become final, it is no-longer open to the Commissioner to set aside that order in a collateral proceeding and that, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is vitiated by error apparant on the face of record. Prima facie, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner but on a deeper probe, I find it difficult to give acceptance to this contention. The reason is that as regards the rival claims arc concerned, Section 56(1) covers the field in which elaborate enquiry is to be conducted regarding the claim as to who the lawful ryot is. In that context, an opportunity has got to be given to the persons who are making rival claims for the grant of ryotwari patta under Section ll(a). It is now a well settled legal position that even an application under Section 56(1) of the Act could be treated to be an application under Section ll(a). But the procedure to be adhered to is that the Settlement Officer should conduct an enquiry under Section 56(1) of the rival claims as to who is a lawful ryot and then decide as to who is entitled to ryotwari patta and thereafter to grant patta under Section 11 (a). This legal postition is not disputed across the bar. The question then is whether the Commissioner is justified in setting aside the order granting ryotwari patta to the petitioner on November 29,1965. It is already seen that, by that date, the 4th respondent had already laid his claim for grant of ryotwari patta obviously under Section 11(a), when there is a reference in that regard by the endorsement dated December 11, 1964. Therefore, when the 4th respondent is claiming his right to a ryotwari patta and when the petitioner, is also laying a claim later for ryotwari patta there is a rival claim for the self-same land. Admittedly, no notice was given to the 4th respondent before grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner. What is the right that is affected is a matter to be gone into at the later stage. But suffice it to say that the question is whether the Settlement Officer can go into the rival claims under Section 56(1) when there is already a ryotwari patta granted in favour of one party under Section ll(a). This question was considered in Ramamurthy vs. A.Nagamma, Kondaiah, J.-, (as he then was) has elaborately considered this question and held thus:-

(3.) 1 respectfully agree with the law laid down by the learned Judge in this regard. Therefore, merely because a ryotwari patta was already granted to one of the rival claimants under Section 11 (a) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer to consider the rival claims under Section 56(1) of the Act is not ousted. Therefore, the entire matter is at large and needs to be considered by the Settlement Officer, viz., who the lawful ryot is and whether the order dated November 29, 1965 granting ryotwari patta under Section ll(a) of the Act to the petitioner is valid and whether it binds the 4th respondent and now his legal representatives, by conducting an enquiry of the rival claims under Section 56(1). Without, going into the question straightaway as to who the lawful ryot is setting aside the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act granted to the petitioner on November 29, 1965 is not a correct procedure adopted by the Commissioner. Accordingly, to that extent, the order is quashed. But the remitting of the matter to the Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry into the rival claims is upheld. Accordingly, the Settlement Officer is directed to conduct an enquiry as to who is the lawful ryot between K.V.Varada Rao and his legal representatives, and the petitioner, and then decide as to who is entitled to the ryotwari patta. In case it is found that Varada Rao is entitled to ryotwari patta, then the Settlement Officer is directed to consider the validity of the grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders relating to grant of ryotwari patta, according to law.