Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Maddam Suseela vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 July, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasada Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasada Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASADA RAO
Writ Petition 18178/2021
O R D E R:
Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, the learned Government Pleader for the Revenue representing respondents 1 to 4 and Sri M.Chalapati Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner's case is thus:
(a) As per the Fair Adangal of Krishnaiah Kaluva village of Renigunta mandal, an extent of Ac.01.06 cents in Survey No.66/2 was classified as Thoti Inam and patta for this land stood in the name of Padi Gangayya, who was a native of Tandalam village. He had wife by name P.Venkata Lakshmamma and one son by name P.Subrahmanyam and three daughters viz., P.Saraswathamma, P.Mangamma and P.Suseela (Writ Petitioner). The said Gangayya died about 13 years back leaving behind the aforesaid legal representatives. His son Subrahmanyam died as bachelor. His elder daughter Saraswathamma got married one P.Krishnaiah and his second daughter Mangamma died as unmarried and the petitioner got married one M.Chinna of Venkatagiri town of Nellore District. After the death of Gangayya, his son/Subrahmanyam, mother and three daughters have succeeded the subject land in equal shares. Later, Mangamma also died on 20.11.2004 leaving behind her mother and two sisters. Later, their mother/Venkata Lakshmamma also died on 24.04.2015 due to ill health leaving behind her two daughters WP 18178/2021 UDPR.J. 2 Saraswathamma and the Writ Petitioner. Later, Saraswathamma migrated to her sister's house at Venkatagiri and she made an application to the Revenue Authorities, Renigunta to mutate her name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass book. After full-fledged enquiry, the Tahsildar, Renigunta/4th Respondent issued e-pattadar pass book No.10212N020000020 for the subject property in favour of Saraswathamma since she was elder sister of the petitioner. Both of them enjoyed the subject property as co-sharers.
Subsequently, Saraswathamma executed an unregistered Will dt.04.03.2016 in favour of the petitioner on 04.03.2016. Later, Saraswathamma died on 04.03.2016 and after her demise, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the subject property. The petitioner made an application to the 4th Respondent to mutate her name in the revenue records and on full-fledged enquiry, the 4th respondent issued proceedings No.D.Dis.B/59/2020, dt.10.01.2020 and granted e-pattadar pass book in her favour.
(b) Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi/3rd Respondent. The 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal long after the subject property was recorded in the name of Padi Gangayya at first, later in the name of Saraswathamma. Without any documentary proof filed by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent decided the appeal in favour of the 5th respondent and directed to make entries in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of subject property.
Hence, the writ petition.
WP 18178/2021
UDPR.J. 3
3. The contention of the respondent is thus:
(a) An extent of Ac.01.06 cents in S.No.66/2 in Krishnaiah Kaluva village of Renigunta mandal of Chittoor District was originally a Thoti Inam land and its Inamdar was Kurakalva Thoti Mangaiah, S/o Chinnodu of Kurakalava village and his name was recorded in the Inam B-Register and fair adangal and other revenue records, and after the advent of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956, ryotwari patta was granted in the name of Inamdar/Kurakalva Thoti Mangaiah vide ryotwari patta No.418, dt.17.06.1967 and his name was entered in the revenue records in respect of the subject property and ever since he enjoyed the said property and after his demise, 15 legal heirs succeeded him and all of them came to an understanding and by a family settlement, they decided that subject land should be enjoyed by the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the 5th respondent is enjoying the subject land with absolute rights. However, to his surprise, in the revenue records, the name of P.Saraswathamma was mutated, who has no right title, enjoyment over the said land. Before mutation, the 4th Respondent has not issued any notice to him. Hence the mutation of record is illegal. It appears that after demise of Saraswathamma, the name of the present petitioner/Suseela was incorporated basing on a Will allegedly executed by Saraswathamma in favour of the Writ Petitioner. Both of them have no right over the subject land. Hence he filed appeal before the 3rd respondent and after enquiry the said appeal was allowed.
He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. WP 18178/2021
UDPR.J. 4
4. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?
5. POINT: As can be seen from the impugned order, the Writ Petitioner claims that subject property was originally granted as Thoti Inam to her father/Padi Gangayya and after the death of her father, brother and sisters, it devolved on her. In oppugnation, the 5th respondent claims that the subject property was granted as Thoti Inam in favour of Kurakalva Thoti Mangaiah and after Inams Abolition Act came into force, ryotwari patta was granted in his favour and after his death, 15 of his legal heirs succeeded the said property and all of them, in a family settlement, agreed that the 5th respondent shall enjoy the subject property with absolute rights and that is how, he got this property.
6. The 3rd respondent after conducting enquiry came to an opinion that the classification of the subject property is "thoti inam" i.e., "service inam"; service inam is burdened with certain conditions of service to the village community; the inam is a gift of the land or land revenue and when inam land is converted into ryotwari village, the person or institution holding such land as an Inamdar on the date of commencement of A.P.Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta and such a ryotwari patta was produced by the Appellant/5th respondent in the writ petition, before him; but, however, the respondent before him/petitioner in the writ petition has failed to produce ryotwari patta. WP 18178/2021
UDPR.J. 5 With these observations, the 3rd respondent directed that the entries made in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the subject property shall be cancelled and the 5th respondent herein shall apply in Form- 6A claim through mee-seva for grant of pattadar pass book and the Tahsildar, Renigunta/4th respondent shall conduct an enquiry as per the procedure laid down under the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and pass order.
7. Thus, the above impugned order shows that the 3rd respondent was mainly inclined to allow the appeal in view of the fact that the 5th respondent herein produced the ryotwari patta dt.17.06.1967 issued in favour of his predecessor namely Kurakalava Thoti Mangaiah in respect of subject property, whereas, the writ petitioner, except relying on I-B entry, could not produce the ryotwari patta said to have been issued in favour of her father/Padi Gangayya. Since both parties are claiming the land through their respective predecessors on the plea that they were granted ryotwari patta subsequent to advent of A.P.Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, it is expected that they shall produce the relevant record i.e. the ryotwari patta in favour of their predecessors. The petitioner herein failed to produce the said record and therefore, the 3rd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and I see no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to approach competent Civil Court for WP 18178/2021 UDPR.J. 6 vindicating her rights, if any, in the subject land, subject to the relevant laws, if she is so advised. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 26.07.2022 krk WP 18178/2021 UDPR.J. 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.18178 of 2021 26th July, 2022 krk