Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
5.2026 Bkm vs Unknown on 1 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: W.P.No.23212 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
01.05.2026 BKM, J
This writ petition is filed questioning the
order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings
No.VI/350/2011 dated 25.01.2022 and consequentially to direct the respondent authorities to issue Ryotwari Patta in favour of the writ petitioners for the subject land in an extent of Ac.194.77 cents out of Ac.206.23 cents in Sy.Nos.1-14 of Purushothapuram Agraharam, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Inams Commissioner recognized and enfranchised and issued title deed No.3050 dated 26.10.1864 in favour of Kuchibotla Sadasiva Parabrahmam for an extent of Ac.261.11 cents. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli in SR No.9/6 VSB passed an order dated 06.03.1967 under section 9 of the Estates Abolition Act holding that Purushothapuram Agraharam is not an Inam Estate under section 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act. The Government in its Memo No.1245/J/67- 2 directed that no appeal need to be filed before the Estate Abolition Tribunal against the decision of Assistant Settlement Officer and directed to P.T.O. initiate action under the provisions of Inams 2 Abolition Act. After recognition and confirmation by the Inams Commissioner in favour of Kuchibotla Sadasiva Parabrahmam duly registering in Inam Fair Register, the subject property underwent several transactions either by succession or by way of registered sales. The grandson of Kuchibotla Sadasiva Parabrahmam who succeeded the property had sold away the entire extent to Sri Tarigopula Srinivasa Rao under registered document No.1011/1914 dated 05.12.1914. The said Tarigopula Srinivasa Rao mortgaged the entire property to Mandhavalli Chandraiah under Document No.422/1921 dated 20.04.1921. As the mortgager failed to repay the loan, the subject property was sold in public auction in execution of a decree in civil suit vide O.S.No.23/1929. Mandhavalli Venkata Raju Setty purchased the same in the Court auction dated 19.12.1932. The said Mandhavalli Venkata Raju Setty died intestate on 16.07.1957. The legal heirs of the said deceased partitioned the property under registered document No.3530/1957 dated 23.12.1957. The legal heirs of Mandhavalli Venkata Raju Setty sold the entire extent of land except one share out of 10 shares to Sri Jagarlamudi Surendra Mouleswara Prasad (an extent of Ac.240.90 cents) under registered document Nos.3431/1965 and 78/1966 in the years 1965 and 1966. The said Jagarlamudi Surendra Mouleswara Prasad sold the said 9/10th share of 3 the land to various individuals under different registered documents dated 03.04.1972 and 04.04.1972. As per Inam Fair Register, the first transaction over the subject land took place in the year 1810 and thereafter 1813 & 1823. The property entered into village accounts for the first time in the fasli 1284 (1874) firstly. The Inam Fair Regiser is a pivotal document which indicates the details of the title holder, source of title, nature of the soil and source of irrigation and for all practical purposes, the same is recognized as title of the land holder under Inam tenure. The Inam Fair Register is a record of unimpeccable evidential value. The persons shown as land holders under the said Inam Fair Register are entitled for Ryotwari patta under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. The subject property was enfranchised in the year 1864 vide title document No.3050 in favour of Kuchibotla Sadasiva Parabrahmam. Once the enfranchisement is over and the Inams Commissioner confirms the title, the Collector will not have any power to interfere with the said land as per BSO 53, the possession of said land will be Ryotwari in all respects including succession, transfers, sub-division, sale for arrears of quit rent etc. Hence for all practical purposes, the said land will be treated as Ryotwari. By virtue of amendment of Section 2(A) of the Act, all the communal lands, porambokes etc., under Inam tenure will be 4 vested in government. The cultivable lands are excluded from the purview of section 2(A) and all other lands which are "not fit for cultivation ever from" were brought under section 2(A). As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the survey conducted by the revenue and survey department personnel in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.79/1975 clearly indicates that the cultivation and existing structures spread over in an extent of Ac.120.00 cents of the land and the same is plain land re- claimation once affected and also fit for cultivation to an extent of Ac.85.00 cents and the rocky areas with shrubs is in an extent of Ac.50.00 cents. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in AIR 1965 SC 338, the entire land under TD No.3050 is cultivable land and the same cannot be treated as waste land to give effect to section 2(A) of the Act.
Inter alia the petitioners also raised other grounds in the main writ petition.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent Nos.1-6 submits that the petitioners have suppressed material facts including the conclusive findings of multiple statutory authorities over six decades and the fact that possession of Ac.101.10 cents was lawfully handed over to the Indian Navy (through the Hindustan Shipyard Building Centre) as far back as on 02.05.2001 itself. The claim is barred by 5 limitation. The petitioners are seeking Ryotwari Patta under the A.P. (A.A.) Inams Abolition Act, 1956 based on an Inam Fair Register (IFR) and title deed from 1864. They are challenging proceedings from 2012. However, the Inam tenure was abolished and the land is vested with the government upon the commencement of the Acts. A claim for re-grant (Ryotwari Patta) after nearly 60 years (from 1956) or more is grossly delayed and cannot be entertained. The subject property, Purushothapuram Agraharam (T.D.No. 3050) is not a single, homogeneous piece of private land. As per the Assistant Settlement Officer‟s order dated 01.04.1959 (confirmed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in T.A.S.No.4 on 11.08.1960), the village consists of two parts:
Purushothapuram Mokhasa (endowed to a temple) and Purushothapuram Agraharam (subject to payment of kattubadi). A final decision was published in the District Gazette on 30.09.1962, notifying that the lands in the Agraharam were Inam lands, but specifying the extent of cultivable land as only Ac.25.45 cents (as per the Inam Fair Register, Column 15). The petitioners‟ claim for ryotwari patta for Ac.206.23 cents (out of Ac.261.80 cents) was rightly rejected because these lands are classified as poramboke, tank, hill poramboke and banjar -
categories that are expressly vested in the Government under section 2A of the Act.
The learned Additional Solicitor General 6 appearing for the 7th respondent submitted that the subject land to an extent of Ac.101.10 cents out of Ac.206.23 cents was duly handed over to the 7th respondent on 02.05.2001 itself. But in view of the interim orders granted by this Court dated 29.07.2022, the 7th respondent is unable to carry out the left over construction activities and other works in the said land.
The compensation aspect raised by the petitioner alternatively can be examined and gone into at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.
In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the interim order granted by this Court dated 29.07.2022 is modified to the effect that the 7th respondent can proceed with its activities and works over the subject extent of the land handed over to it and for the remaining extent of the subject land, the earlier interim order dated 29.07.2022 continues, pending further orders.
For the purpose of consideration of the main relief sought in the writ petition, further detailed hearing is required. Hence, it is directed to be listed for final hearing after six(6) weeks.
Delete the caption „Part-Heard‟.
List on 25.06.2026.
_________ BKM, J PND