WP/13011/2003 of Kotha Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to makenecessary entries in the revenue records showing the petitioner as pattadar in respect of the land admeasuringAcs.7.30 cents in survey No.14/2 and Acs.20.95 cents in survey No.33/2 situated at Pallamalli Village ofChimakurthy Mandal in Prakasam District (hereafter referred to as, the subject land), by implementing the roughpatta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Abolition Act, for brevity).

The petitioner’s case in brief which is seriously disputed and denied by the respondents is as follows. Thesubject land formed part of Venkatagiri Estate. The petitioner’s ancestors were cultivating the land long prior to thecoming into force of Abolition Act duly paying the cist to the Venkatagiri Estate. After coming into force of the Act,the petitioner made an application under Section 11(a) of the Abolition Act to the ASO, Nellore, for grant of ryotwaripatta. He produced pre-abolition record like cist receipts and others in support of his possession. Considering thesame, the ASO, by proceedings being SR.No.432/11(a)/63/OGL, dated 21.01.1966, granted rough patta No.133. The same, however, was not implemented. He then approached the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & LandRecords, Hyderabad (the Commissioner, for brevity), by making an application dated 05.08.1995 for a direction toimplement the rough patta. The Commissioner called for a report from the District Collector concerned. Afterconsidering such report made by the Collector, in January 1996 the Commissioner issued proceedings, beingCSS & LRs Reference No.P2/1428, dated 28.02.1996, directing the Collector to implement the orders of the ASO,dated 21.01.1966, and include the two survey numbers in the Village accounts. The same was not immediatelycomplied with. In the meanwhile, in 2001 there was interference with the petitioner’s possession by the petitioner’scousins. He then filed O.S.No.379 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, and obtaineda decree of permanent injunction dated 02.02.2002. The petitioner alleges that the influential people in the Villagemade attempts to grab the lands. Therefore, they prevailed over the Government and the respondents startedinterfering with the possession. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking the relief as noticed hereinabove. The third respondent i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy, filed the counter affidavit. The subjectland in survey No.14/2 (to the extent of Acs.2.72 cents) is classified as assessed waste dry and the land in surveyNo.33/2 (total extent Acs.512.04 cents) is classified as hill poramboke. It is stated that the subject lands areGovernment lands and the petitioner’s claim is based on the orders passed by the authorities without jurisdictionand non est in law. After abolition of the estates the subject lands vest in the State under Section 3(b) of theAbolition Act. They are communal/poramboke land in respect of which no ryotwari patta can be issued. UnderSection 20A of the Estates Land Act, 1908 (Estates Act), it is only the District Collector who is vested with thejurisdiction to divert communal lands and covert into ryotwari land. There is no such proceedings issued by theCollector under Section 20A of the Estates Act and the land continues to be poramboke land. In the counteraffidavit it is further stated that in respect of communal lands that vest in the State under Section 3(b) of theAbolition Act the ryotwari patta cannot be granted under Section 11(a) of the Abolition Act and the SettlementOfficer has no jurisdiction to grant patta. In that view of the matter, the order of the ASO and the Commissioner areinvalid. The answering respondent is not aware of the rough patta and the order of the Commissioner. The land insurvey No.33/2, which is a hill poramboke is in possession of the Government and the land in survey No.14/2 hasbeen assigned in 1996 to landless poor persons. The counter affidavit also refers to the decision of the SupremeCourt in Bombay Gas Company Limited v Gopal Bhiva[[1]], Kaushalya Devi v K.L.Bansal[[2]], State of Orissa vBrundaban Sharma[[3]]and the decisions of this Court in P.Chenchulakshmma v E.A.Tribunal[[4]] and Directorof Settlements v Neerupaka Rama Krishna[[5]]in support of the contention that a ryotwari patta under Section11(a) cannot be granted in respect of communal land or the land classified as hill poramboke.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that during the enquiry before the ASO the petitioner produced theentire pre-abolition record prior to 1945 showing the cultivation by the petitioner’s ancestors. The Tahasildar alsofiled written statement in favour of the petitioner. When the rough patta was granted the Revenue Department didnot agitate it by filing revision or appeal before the appropriate authority and therefore, the rough patta has becomefinal. Nextly, he contended that when proper entries were not made, the petitioner approached theCommissioner. The Commissioner called for the remarks of the District Collector. Even at that stage, the DistrictCollector did not raise any objection nor took the plea that the land was classified as hill poramboke or the landwas assigned to landless poor persons. As the Commissioner has already passed orders directing the Collector toimplement the patta and make necessary entries, the respondent cannot have any objection. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Sajana Granites v Manduva Srinivasa Rao[[6]],Dama Kotilingam @Kotilingaiah v Joint Collector, Prakasam District[[7]], Bollineni Pedayogaiah v Joint Collector/SettlementOfficer, Ongole[[8]], Duvvur Raja Gopala Reddy v District Collector, Nellore[[9]], D.Ajanthamma v JointCollector, Chittoor[[10]], S.Muni Venkatamma v Commissioner of Survey and Settlements[[11]], MandalRevenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) v Kanchubriki Parvathamma[[12]]and Rani Kamala Devi vCommissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records[[13]].

The law of landholdings in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by and large the various enactments and the BoardStanding Orders (BSOs) - issued by the erstwhile Board of Revenue. The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, Abolition Act, are for instance some such Acts which deal with the land tenuresand landholdings. A person who is the owner of the land either by succession or acquisition by sale is entitled tobe recognized as owner of the land. Such recommendation by law is regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Rights inLand and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act), and Rules made thereunder. Be it under the BSOs or underthe ROR Act, every person who acquires title to the land either by sale, gift, mortgage, succession or Governmentassignment or otherwise is entitled to make an application to the recording authority, namely, the Tahasildar toenter his name in the record of rights. When once the name is entered in the record of rights, as of right he isentitled to get the pattadar pass books and title deeds, which are considered prima facie evidence of title in respectof the land under Section 6 of the ROR Act. Therefore, entries in the relevant revenue records or village accountsassume importance in the rural agricultural economy.

A request by a landholder or a person who seeks proper entries to be made in his favour in the revenuerecords cannot be dealt with lightly or in a routine manner. In hundreds of lakhs of instances of landholdings inrural areas the very entries made in the revenue records (and such land registration), now record of rights, asreflected in the pattadar pass books and title deeds are themselves proof of title. Generally, when once the word isspread that a piece of land is registered in the name of particular person, others would not venture to occupy theland or to claim rival title. Indeed, in number of cases the Supreme Court and this court have held that though theentries in the revenue records or revenue entries by themselves cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title, suchentries nevertheless furnish prima facie proof of possession which itself is nine points in law.

Conclusion

This Court out of compulsion made the observations as above for two reasons. First, of late many revenueauthorities do not take the applications made by rural people seeking necessary changes in the revenue recordsseriously with promptitude. The enquiries into such applications are delayed; sometimes wantonly. Experienceis not uncommon where most of the persons who approached the revenue authorities seeking necessary changesin the revenue records, in vain, approach this Court only for a direction to the revenue authorities to dispose of theirapplications expeditiously. Secondly, whenever – as is in this case; a person makes an application for necessarychange in the revenue records based on a patta granted under BSO 15 or BSO 21 or a patta granted under theAbolition Act or Inams Abolition Act in Andhra Area[[14]]the revenue authorities raise objections in the writ petitionsfiled complaining inaction. Keeping this in view, it is necessary at least now for the Government or the ChiefCommissioner of Land Administration to issue proper instructions to ensure the consideration and disposal ofapplications for changes in record of rights with timeliness.

Reverting back to the facts of this case the petitioner has filed the typed copies of the proceedings of the ASOand the proceedings of the Commissioner. There is no doubt, as pointed out by the Assistant GovernmentPleader, a delay of twenty nine years on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Commissioner forimplementation of the patta and making necessary entries in the revenue records. There is also delay inapproaching this Court. When the Commissioner passed orders on 28.02.1996 the writ petition was filed in July2003. These matters must also have some bearing on the right claimed by the petitioner. However, having regardto the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in various decisions to which a reference hasbeen made above, it is for the authorities to consider these matters in the first instance. Further, when thepetitioner himself has asked only for the relief of directing the respondents to make necessary entries in therevenue records it is not proper to go into the validity of the patta, especially, when the Tahasildar categoricallystates that he is not aware of these proceedings. This Court is of considered opinion that it is a case of properenquiry by the Joint Collector.

In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Joint Collector – cum –Settlement Officer, second respondent herein, to conduct a detailed enquiry into the claim made by the petitionerwith reference to the original record after issuing notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders dulycommunicating the same to the petitioner as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court as above. This exerciseshall be completed within a period of six months from today.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions.

_______________

31.12.2010

vs

[1]AIR 1964 SC 752

[2]AIR 1970 SC 838

[3]1995 Suppl.(3) SCC 249

[4]AIR 1972 AP 1 (FB)

[5]2001 (2) An.W.R 495

[6]2002 (1) ALT 466 (DB)

[7]2003 (1) ALT 1 (DB)

[8]2004 (5) ALT 806

[9]2005 (2) ALT 62

[10]2006 (6) ALT 192

[11]2008 (4) ALT 204

[12]2009 (1) ALT 445 (DB)

[13]2009 (6) ALT 533 (DB)

[14]Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

(V.V.S.RAO, J)