WP/60/2004 of Pokkireddy Prabhakar Reddy, Vs The Commissioner, Appeals, on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

Writ Petition No.60 of 2004

Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.04.2002 passedby the Special Commissioner and Director ofSettlements, A.P., Hyderabad, 2[nd] respondent hereinas confirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals, 1[st]respondent herein vide his order, dated 18.11.2003, thewrit petition is filed.

The case of the petitioners is that their ancestorswere in possession and occupation of the said land, ason the notified date, under the Act. After the notificationissued by the Government in G.OMs.No.15, dated16.01.1974, the petitioners made an application to theSettlement Officer under Section 11-A of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). Afterverification of the claim of the petitioners and thematerial placed before him, the Settlement Officergranted pattas over an extent of Ac.3.50 cents inSurvey No.1 and Ac.0.70 cents in Survey No.8/1 ofThungamadugu Village, Hamlet of Yedurupattu Village,Doravarisathram Mandal, Nellore District, in their favourin exercise of powers granted by the Mandal RevenueOfficer, Doravarisathram 3[rd] respondent herein underSection 11-A of the through proceedings inS.R.No.240/11(a)/79/NLR, dated 11.02.1980. Thegrievance of the petitioners is that the 2[nd] respondent,after lapse of about 22 years, had taken up suo motu revision under Section 5(2) of the Act and cancelled thepattas granted in favour of the petitioners in 1980mainly on the following ground:

2. A show cause notice was issued on 10-10-1094

incorporating the following grounds:-

i)Patta was granted on the basis of theclaim and documents filed withoutexamining the pre-abolition records andverifying whether the suit lands areryoti/non-ryoti and whether the claimant orhis vendor was in physical occupation andenjoyment of the lands prior to 1-7-45.ii)Before granting patta to the claimantnotice of hearing was not served on theTahsildar who is to safeguard the publicinterest.

iii)The respondents did not choose to fileany explanation to the above show causenotice issued through the then Tahsildar,Sullurpet.

and that in the further appeal preferred by them, the 1[st]respondent without examining the grounds, which wereraised before him, merely confirmed the orders of the2[nd] respondent.

Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners contends that the orders passed byrespondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside on onesimple ground that both the authorities had come to theconclusion that the pattas were granted in favour of thepetitioners without examining the pre-abolition recordsby the 3[rd] respondent and that they ought to haveremanded the matter to the Settlement Officer toconsider the record and pass necessary orders afterverification of the same. He further contends that hisspecific plea that in respect of the land in Survey No.1pattas were granted in favour of one Mr.P.Krishna

Reddy and 20 others, has not been specifically denied,which itself would go to show that the land is not agrazing poramboke as sought to be made out byrespondents 1 and 2. He specifically by drawingattention to paragraph No.7 of the order, dated09.04.2002, submits that even in the counter affidavitfiled by the 3[rd] respondent, it is admitted fact that 60Sivajamadars are in occupation over an extent ofAcs.161.50 cents of land, out of a total extent ofAc.225.55 cents in Survey No.1. He submits thatadmittedly, the petitioners are in possession andenjoyment of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.1 and with respectto the other persons, who had also been grantedpattas, no action as such has been taken and that thepetitioners have been singled out by issuance ofcancellation proceedings. He submits that the land isnot grazing poramboke as contended by therespondents and as a matter of fact, if the pre-abolitionrecords are verified, the same would reveal that theland is a ryoti land. In all fairness, learned counselsubmits that these are being the facts, which requireverification, the matter may be remanded for freshconsideration by the Settlement Officer.

Sri Srinivas, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader, while opposing the prayer of the petitioners,draws attention to the order, dated 09.04.2002, whereinthe 2[nd] respondent had verified the cist receipts for theperiod between 1940 and 1949. He submits that theallegation that pre-abolition records were not before the2[nd] respondent is not correct. He further submits thatthe authorities below had taken into consideration therecords available with the authorities and came to the right conclusion and the order of respondent No.2 asconfirmed by respondent No.1 does not suffer from anyillegality much less any error of jurisdiction warrantinginterference of this Court in exercise of certiorarijurisdiction. He further contends that placing relianceupon the judgment of the Division Bench inW.A.No.1333 and 1354 of 2012, dated 04.01.2013, theCircular issued by the Government to review all thepattas granted by the then Settlement Officer viz., Mr.A.D.V.Reddy on account of the fraud played by the saidofficer was upheld and the pattas granted in favour ofthe petitioners is by the said officer and that as a matterof fact, suo motu revision taken up by the 2[nd]respondent was on account of the Circular, which hasbeen upheld by this Court.

Having considered the rival averments, oneaspect, which would become clear from a perusal of thecounter filed by the 3[rd] respondent on 13.06.2011 inthe writ petition is that the total extent of Survey No.8/1is Ac.0.92 cents. Out of the 0.92 cents, Ac.0.20 centswas assigned in favour of one Sri PuttamaneniSubrahmanyam vide Taluk F.Dis.No.12/79, dated20.04.1970 and patta bearing No.184 was granted infavour of the said Subrahmanyam. It is beyond anypale of doubt that the land in Survey No.81 is ryoti landand does not fall in the category of grazing poramboke. The order passed by the 2[nd] respondent does not dealwith this aspect and the reasons for cancelling thepattas with respect to the land in Survey No.8/1 are notborne out by the record.

So far as the land in Survey No.1 is concerned,the specific contentions of the petitioners that the pattas

were granted in favour of P.Krishna Reddy and 20others in the same survey number, as the same isryoity land and not grazing poramboke, was notcontroverted by specific reference to the revenuerecords. It is the specific contention of the petitionersthat the pre-abolition records were not produced beforethe Settlement Commissioner and the Commissioner(Appeals) was not denied and in which event, the basisfor the 2[nd] respondent to record a finding that the landin Survey No.1 was grazing land prima facie would bebased on no material and such finding would beunrebuttable.

In the light of the discussion above, I consider itappropriate to set aside the order passed by the 2[nd]respondent as confirmed by the 1[st] respondent andremand the matter to the Settlement Officer to considerthe claim of the petitioners for grant of pattas in SurveyNos.1 and 8/1 of Thungamadugu Village, Hamlet ofYedurupattu Village, Doravarisathram Mandal, NelloreDistrict. The Settlement Officer shall complete theexercise of consideration of the claim of the petitionerswithin a period of six months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petitionshall also stand disposed of.

_____________________

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

Date: 30.12.2014JSU

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

Writ Petition No.60 of 2004

JSU

Date: 30.12.2014