Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E.Rajagopal Reddy vs The Government Of A.P., Rep. By Its ... on 6 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
W.P.No.1499 of 2010 & W.P.No.3049 of 2010
Common order:
As facts in both these two writ petitions are common, both
these writ petitions are disposed of together. W.P. No.1499 of
2010 is filed by 58 petitioners, all are residents of Daminedu Village
and whereas, W.P. No.3049 of 2010 has been filed by
5 petitioners, who are also petitioners 2, 13, 32, 33 and 46 in W.P.
No.1499 of 2010.
2. W.P.No.1499 of 2010 is filed with the following prayer:
"to declare the inaction of the 1st respondent in
processing the Memo No.52300/JA-2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008 in respect of the lands of the petitioners' in Sy. Nos.46 to 57, 173 to 182, 211, 192 to 207 an extent of Ac 175.00 cents of Daminedu Revenue Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1964 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders for issuance of ryotwari pattas in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.46 to 57, 173 to 182, 211, 192 to 207 an extent of Ac 175 00 of Daminedu Revenue Village, 2 Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as per G.O. Ms. No.548. dated 28.04.2003 and for a consequential direction."
3. W.P. No.3049 of 2010 is filed with the following prayer:
"to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in transferring the petitioners lands situated in Sy.Nos.196/6 to 13, 197/1 to 12, 198/1, 3 to 11, 199/1 & 2, 200/1 & 2, 203/1 to 6, 204/1 to 6, 205/1 to 5, 206/1 & 2, 308/3 to 7, 15 and 16(P) totaling an extent of Ac. 35.53 cents situated in Daminedu Village, within territorial Jurisdiction of Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, pending before the 1st respondent for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 68 of Estate Abolition Act 1948 in Memo No 52300/JA2/20081 from the A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Chittoor to Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, which has no territorial jurisdiction vide Memo No.APSHCL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 16.06.2009 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the status quo orders granted by the 2nd respondent vide File No. P1/288/2008, dated 17.03.2008 and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and Article 243(ix) of the Constitution of India and Sub-Section (d) of Section 3 of Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and Regulations made thereunder and also violative of the Panchayat Raj Act and set aside the proceedings in Memo No.APSHCL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 16.06.2009 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders for issuance of ryotwari patta in 3 favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.196/6 to 13, 197/1 to 12, 198/1, 3 to 11, 199/1 & 2, 200/1 & 2, 203/1 to 6, 204/1 to 6, 205/1 to 5, 206/1 & 2, 308/3 to 7, 15 and 16(P) totaling an extent of Ac. 35.53 cents situated in Daminedu Village, Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, on par with G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 28.04.2003 and pass such other orders."
4. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing on behalf of Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing on behalf of respondents 1 to 6 and Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of the 7th respondent.
5. (a) The petitioners claimed to be either legal heirs or purchasers and that their ancestors or predecessors in title have been in occupation and enjoyment of various extents of land in Daminedu Village. It is stated that the said village was Inam Village notified and taken over under The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter, for short 'The Act'). During the said process, survey operations were conducted in the year 1961 and also as there were 4 certain mistakes, fresh survey was conducted during the years 2006 & 2009 and the lands which have been in occupation and possession of the petitioners have been identified and shown to be with respective ryots. As against the 26 original ryots by interest and succession, the number of ryots who are now in occupation has now increased to more than 58 and they have been cultivating these lands from generations.
(b) It is further submitted that some of their ancestors have filed claims before settlement officer and due to generation gap and in view of shifting of the settlement office from Nellore and transferring of all files to the Settlement Office at Chittoor, the enquiry with respect to those claims in relation to Daminedu Village left unattended.
(c) Further, petitioners 27, 32 and 40 in W.P. No.1499 of 2010 and others filed claim applications under Section 11(a) of the Act before the Settlement Officer for grant of ryotwari patta, which was rejected vide L.Dis.No.F6/557/08, dated 24.05.2008, on the ground that the Settlement Officers were not empowered to entertain fresh claims after 24.04.1993 as their powers were withdrawn. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed before Director of Survey 5 and Settlements, Hyderabad and the same has been returned vide proceedings N.Dis.No.B1/5398/2008, dated 01.07.2008. It is further submitted that as the lands claimed by the petitioners have been classified as Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) in revenue records, which was by sheer mistake and over sight, inasmuch as, the lands were very much cultivable, several representations were made to revenue officials for rectifying the same.
(d) It is further pleaded that some of the petitioners have also filed a petition before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in C.C.L.A. No.2880 of 2008. As there was no response from either officials or from the CCLA, representation dated 'nil' was given to Hon'ble Chief Minister, who in turn has forwarded the same to 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent vide Memo. No.52300/JA.2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008, in turn requested the 3rd respondent to send specific remarks in relation to the subject matter i.e., issuance of ryotwari pattas to ryots in S.Nos. 46 to 57, 173 to 182, 211, 192 to 207, admeasuring an extent of an extent of Ac 175.00 cents of Daminedu Revenue Village, through the 2nd respondent. Though such memo was issued and that as no action was forthcoming, the petitioners have made yet another representation dated March, 2009 to the Hon'ble 6 Minister for Medical Education and Health Insurance and the 3rd respondent to expedite the process. Even before such representation was made at the instance of petitioners, it is stated that the survey was conducted once in the year 2006 and later, in the year 2009. The survey conducted in 2009 was at the request of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, who by letter dated 01.02.2009 requested the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to resurvey the lands which are subject matter of claim made by petitioners, pursuant to which, vide proceedings Rc.No.A3/175/2009, dated 19.02.2009, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Record, issued orders constituting the survey team for completing the above task and accordingly, it is claimed that survey was conducted on 27.02.2009 and 28.02.2009 and the survey reports indicate that the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the lands were cultivable but not AWD as claimed by the respondents. In support of the same, petitioners have filed the statements under Exs.P4 and P5.
(e) It is further stated that when their claims for grant of ryotwari patta in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act are pending before various authorities, the respondents 1 to 4 tried to dig pits and started construction in the said lands in spite of the fact that 7 petitioners were in actual possession and there existed standing crops, even the petitioners claimed to have represented to the collector on 09.01.2010, requesting them not to interfere and as there was no response nor passed any orders thereon, the petitioners were constrained to file these writ petitions. Petitioners also stated that as their claims for grant of ryotwari patta are pending consideration, they cannot be dispossessed from the lands in view of second proviso to Section 3(d) of the Act and the instructions issued by the 1st respondent vide Memos Ref.No.Spl.A1/3709/79, dated 07.03.1979, Proc.No.892/J2/80-3, dated 17.07.1980, and D.Dis.No.B3/4527/91, dated 19.03.1991.
6. (a) The 6th respondent - Tahsildar filed counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6. It is stated in the counter that Daminedu Village is an Inam Estate Village taken over by the Government on 25.09.1961. Before taking over of estate, it is stated that the settlement authorities have conducted detailed survey, and after thorough verification of enjoyment on the ground, as well as right over the land in each and every survey number and after comparing the survey number with pre-abolition adangals, fair adangal, came to be prepared and certified on 30.08.1956, which was written in manuscript showing the details of survey number, 8 sub-division, correlating paimaish number, classification and name of the pattadar etc. The final survey settlement operations were completed during the year 1962 and published in A.P. Gazette dated 15.02.1962. As per the said survey settlement operations, the authorities have freezed the village maps, FMB Sketches and fair Adangals for Daminedu Village and also Yogimallavaram Village for which such survey was conducted. The claims for grant of ryotwari pattas in terms of Section 11(a) or claims by landholder in Zamindari Estate, Inam Estate, and lands in an under tenure estate were entertained and received till the year 1975 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 16.01.1974 and later, even fresh claims were also entertained upto the year 1994 where there was reasonable cause shown for condoning the delay. It is stated that there are no claims pending before the Settlement Officer in respect of the lands claimed by the petitioners.
(b) It is further stated in the counter that during the survey and settlement, the village was assigned with S.Nos.15 to 212 with 1002 sub-divisions, of which 603 sub-divisions related to Patta lands and 399 sub-divisions related to Inam, Poramboke, AWD and AWW. During the enquiry either under Section 11 or 15, the Settlement Officer, Chittoor granted 205 rough pattas in different 9 survey numbers, of which 175 pattas were granted in favour of two individuals as joint pattadars and 12 pattas were granted in favour of pattadars three and others jointly and in all these enquiries, no claims or objections of whatsoever were received in respect of the lands for which the petitioners claim ryotwari pattas. It is also stated that as per the sub-divisions mentioned above, the lands were not falling in the sub-divisions relating to patta lands and it is very much therefore evident that subject lands are raiti lands, for which no claims have been filed or pending before them.
(c) It is also stated that when the Government has acquired certain of these lands in the year 2000 for the purpose of formation of 150 feet bypass road from Chandragiri to Renigunta covering a distance of 21 Kms., treating the subject lands as Government lands, the same were not included in the acquisition and the same have been handed over to Executive Engineer, State Highway Project, Tirupati and project was completed without any objections. Similarly, an extent of Acres 6.76 cents of various survey numbers of Daminedu Village were acquired for formation of bypass road and even for which, there were no claims or objections. The present lands are now being sought to be utilized for construction of houses under Urban Housing Programme as the lands have 10 house site potentiality, therefore, at the request of A.P. State Housing Corporation, the 3rd respondent had instructed the Revenue Officers to examine the availability and suitability of these lands for allotment to mitigate the above purpose and therefore, the 6th respondent and the field officers had undertaken detailed survey and found to be vacant without any sort of agricultural activity and as the same were suitable for construction of houses, report was submitted. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings 1) E1/4570/05, dated 26.05.2005, 2) E1/4570/05, dated 30.05.2005, 3) E1/4570/2005, dated 21.01.2006, 4) E1/9232/06, dated 15.09.2006 and 5) E4/7462/07, dated 05.08.2007, with a direction to hand over the land to A.P. State Housing Corporation and accordingly, the same were physically handed over on 28.05.2005, 30.05.2005, 18.03.2006, 19.09.2006 and 16.08.2007.
(d) Thereafter, the 7th respondent has undertaken jungle clearance and called for tenders for execution of the housing project and upon identifying the successful tenderer, the work has been allotted for execution of the same to the respective contractor and the site was also handed over on 22.01.2006. It is also stated that already certain of the buildings have been completed and 11 beneficiaries were also identified and are living in the said buildings, besides further works relating to other buildings were under execution.
(e) It is also stated that during the year 2005, when these works were in the process of execution, one Mr.Etti Vasudeva Reddy, who is petitioner No.13 in W.P. No.1499 of 2010, filed W.P. No.12326 of 2005 contending that he was being dispossessed from the land which he claims to be in possession in Daminedu Village without any prior notice or opportunity of following due process of law as being arbitrary and illegal, which was disposed by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 31.01.2006 observing that as already the land has been taken possession by the respondents and allotted to A.P. State Housing Corporation, the petitioner therein was not entitled for any further relief. It was also observed in the said order that neither the petitioner therein nor his forefather's application for grant of ryotwari patta was pending for consideration, therefore, he cannot claim any right. Even the other lands which are with the State Government have been allotted to the 4th respondent Corporation and the 3rd respondent to that extent has issued proceedings No.2636/09/IHSDP/ATO, dated 15.06.2009 and Memo No.APSHL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 12 16.06.2009, which were meant for construction of houses under IHSDP programme for distribution to weaker section people. In so far as the extension of benefit as claimed on par with the persons who were granted ryotwari pattas to those who were found to be in possession and enjoyment of the land before 1980 in relation to Paidipalle Revenue Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, which was an Inam Estate Village, in pursuance to G.O.MS.No.548, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2003, it is stated that the same cannot be granted inasmuch as the subject land which is now being claimed is already been allotted to the 7th respondent Corporation way back in the year 2005, 2006 & 2007, for the purpose of construction of houses under Urban Land Housing Scheme for the benefit of weaker sections and as these lands are not in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners any more, such benefit cannot be extended and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. (a) The 4th respondent also filed separate counter stating that an extent of 45.94 Acres, which is recorded as Assessed Waste Dry by the Revenue Department falling in Survey Nos.173, 176/3C, 211, 196/6 to 13, 197/1 to 12, 198/1, 3 to 11, 199/1 and 2, 200/1 & 2, 203/1 to 6, 204/1 to 6, 205/1 to 5, 206/1 & 2 and 308/3 13 to 7-15-16 part of Daminedu Village was handed over to the Municipal Corporation for construction of houses for weaker section people. Initially the land was handed over to the 7th respondent Corporation by proceedings No.E1/5368/2005, dated 22.06.2005 and Proceedings Roc No.E1/4570/2005, dated 28.05.2005 and later on, the 7th respondent in turn handed over the same to 4th respondent Corporation by Memo No. APSHCL/LA/2008, dated 16.06.2009.
(b) In fact, the 4th respondent has secured the permission from Tirupati Urban Development Authority vide proceedings ROC. No.1767/G1/2006 - L.P. No.58/G1/06, dated 22.09.2006, for undertaking the execution of housing scheme and has handed over the same for construction to the contractor, who has been identified through bidding process.
(c) It is further stated that when the possession was handed over to it, there were no structures or any activity whatsoever over the land, in support of which, few photographs have been annexed and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. The implead respondents 8 to 11 by their counter stated that part of the land which is the subject matter of the total extent 175 14 acres as claimed in these writ petitions was purchased by respondents 9 to 11 from 8th respondent, who got the property by way of grant of ryotwari patta by proceedings dated 20.02.2024, under which an extent of Acres 4.75 cents was granted treating the same as Karanam Inam Lands and an extent of Acres 5.39 cents in various survey numbers was granted as Maniyam Inam Lands, therefore, those lands being cultivable can never be treated as Government lands and more so AWD and as 8th respondent has rightly been granted patta in terms of The Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the petitioners cannot lay any claim over the same and therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition in so far as the properties which these respondents claim.
9. Perused the record.
10. (a) Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners primarily contended that the petitioners, who either claim the right to the land through their ancestors or some of them have purchased it, are entitled for ryotwari patta in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act, inasmuch as the lands which they are claiming i.e., an extent of 175 acres in Sy. Nos.46 to 57, 173 to 15 182, 211, 192 to 207 of Daminedu Village were all ryotwari and very much cultivable. The initial survey conducted and the entries reflecting in fair adangal, other revenue records showing that the subject lands as AWD was sheerly on the count of mistake and as a matter of fact, the said lands were very much ryotwari lands, therefore, same cannot be treated as AWD and deny the petitioners the ryotwari patta.
(b) He would further contend that at the request of petitioners, there was re-survey conducted in the year 2006 and also again in the year 2009, as per which, the petitioners lands have been identified and correlated with respect to their enjoyment and nature of activity undertaken therein and the said reports are not being taken cognizance of and though this Court in its order dated 19.06.2014 while dismissing the vacate petition directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the survey file, the same has not been produced. He also contends that the petitioners have submitted representation dated 'nil' to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and who in turn has forwarded the same to the 1st respondent and that a Memo No.52300/JA-2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008, has been issued inter alia requesting the District Collector, Chittoor to immediately inspect and submit a report, but however no such 16 inspection and report have been submitted, therefore, he seeks direction from this Court to the 3rd respondent to act on the above memo and comply the same by submitting necessary report. He further contends that when the claims of the petitioners are pending consideration before the concerned authorities for grant of ryotwari pattas, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot either evict the petitioners from the subject land or assign the same to third parties and in support of which, reference has been made to circulars issued by the Government vide Memos Ref.No.Spl.A1/3709/79, dated 07.03.1979, Proc.No.892/J2/80-3, dated 17.07.1980, and D.Dis.No.B3/4527/91, dated 19.03.1991 and also the judgment rendered by this Court in Dama Kothilingam & Kotilingaiah v. Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and another1 and G.Chandra Mouli and another v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor2 and therefore, prays to allow the writ petition.
11. (a) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter submits that first and foremost there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have any right and interest over the subject property which is 1 2002 (6) ALD 1 (DB) 2 W.P. No.19463 of 2000, dated 22.03.2004 17 admeasuring about 175 acres and no details as to how they have acquired the property and how much extent of land they are claiming are provided.
(b) It is further contended that the averments in the writ affidavit are as vague as possible and except for the representation alleged to have been given to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, even a copy of which has not been filed, and few other representations submitted under RTI, no other piece of document has been filed in support of the petitioners claim that they have laid appropriate claims as required under Section 11(a) of the Act claiming ryotwari patta. He would contend that no claims whatsoever either by petitioners or by any other are ever filed or pending before the settlement officer claiming for ryotwari patta and he would also state that even the petitioners' predecessors have never filed any such claims, therefore, the question of entertaining any such claim much less by way of the representations as made does not arise.
(c) It is contended that part of the subject lands were already given to the 7th respondent Corporation way back in the year 2005 and even before that part of land was affected in the process of formation of 150 feet road from Chandragiri to Renigunta and 18 further extent of land during formation of bypass road, for which there was no claim or objection whatsoever. Even later, an extent of 45.94 acres has been allotted and handed over to 4th respondent
- Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, in the year 2009 for the purpose of construction of houses under Urban Land Scheme, which is a prestigious programme under JNNURM and they have already gone ahead with constructions and completed part of it. As the subject lands have already been put to use for various public purposes which Government intended to undertake either for the purpose of creating infrastructure or developing housing, and that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the property, their request for processing of the Memo No.52300/JA-2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008, for the purpose of entertaining any claims for issuance of ryotwari patta at this stage does not arise.
(d) It is stated that at any rate, the mere issuance of the said memo calling for remarks from the Collector does not entitle the petitioners any right to claim that the claims for issuance of ryotwari patta are pending and therefore, the land should not be allowed or assigned to third parties. Supporting the above arguments, learned standing counsel for 7th respondent Municipal Corporation submits that an extent of Acres 45.94 cents was allotted to it through 7th 19 respondent - Housing Corporation and that they have already initiated developmental activities over the same after securing necessary permission and approvals from the competent authority such as Tirupati Urban Development Authority and others and that they have executed part of the construction of houses under Urban Land Programme.
(e) Even the proceedings in file No.P1/288/08, which is said to be pending before CCLA will not come to the rescue of petitioner, firstly that the application said to have been filed before CCLA has neither been produced nor the nature of proceedings is pleaded in the affidavit and secondly that mere filing of innocuous application before 2nd respondent does not amount to the pendency of any claim. In order to claim the benefit of circulars Memos Ref.No.Spl.A1/3709/79, dated 07.03.1979, Proc.No. 892/J2/80-3, dated 17.07.1980, and D.Dis.No. B3/4527/91, dated 19.03.1991 and also the judgments referred to, the petitioners are required to demonstrate that there are proper claims instituted by them are pending consideration before the competent and appropriate authority.
20
12. The learned counsel for implead respondents, while drawing attention to their counter affidavit while opposing the writ petition stated that inasmuch as they have been granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of Section 7(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, treating an extent of Acres 4.75 cents as Karanam Inam Lands and Acres 5.39 cents as Maniyam Inam Lands, which the respondents 9 to 10 have purchased from 8th respondent, the same land cannot be once again claimed by petitioners for the purpose of grant of ryotwari patta under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Therefore, contended that the writ petition to the extent of claim made by these respondents should be dismissed.
13. This Court has given conscious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side. Section 11(a) of the Act, 1948 relevant for present purpose read as under.
"11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta.
- Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either 21 lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act;"
14. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 67 r/w Section 11 of the Act, Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter, Rules, 1973), are made providing for making application before Settlement Officer claiming for ryotwari patta. A conjoint reading of these provisions go to show that every ryot in the Estate Village has to apply before the Settlement Officer claiming ryotwari patta over the land which he was in continuous occupation and enjoyment by way of cultivation as on the notified date and that Settlement Officer after conducting the enquiry and upon satisfying that the applicatnt ryot fulfilled the requirement of his possession and enjoyment as on notified date shall grant ryotwari patta. In the process of enquiry, the Settlement Officer will have to satisfy that the claimants have fulfilled not only the requirement of their continuous occupation and possession, but also that the land should be ryoti and that the claimant is cultivating the same as ryot, besides examining the same with reference to pre abolition records.
22
15. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the procedure contemplated for conducting enquiry, the present cases are considered as under.
16. This Court has gone through the innocuous prayer made by the petitioners i.e., a direction to the 1st respondent to process the Memo No.52300/JA-2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008, for the purpose of consideration of petitioners' request for grant of ryotwari pattas for an extent of 175 acres in S.Nos. 46 to 57, 173 to 182, 211, 192 to 207. The genesis for issuance of the memo apparently is a representation seems to have been submitted by petitioners to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Though this Court has insisted the petitioners' counsel to produce the same, it was not placed on record, however, a similar representation dated March 2009 filed as annexure P6 was referred to draw strength that they had submitted representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, pursuant to which the impugned memo came to be issued. The reason for this court in asking to produce the representation as referred in the above memo is to ascertain and note the contents of the same for determining the issue as to the nature of claims made by the petitioners. As the petitioners' counsel had stated that the representation under Ex.P6 is similar to the one which is referred 23 to in the impugned memo, and by going through the contents of the said representation, it is clear that nowhere petitioners have mentioned or given any particulars as to whether they ever had made any claim for grant of ryotwari patta as required under Section 11(a) of the Act. The application also does not refer to any of such claims made by their ancestors or predecessors in title. But there is a vague assertion that some claims have been filed and that due to generation gap and shifting of the offices, the same were left over. Para 7 of the said representation reads as under:
"7. We further submit that some of our ancestors have filed claims before the settlement authorities and due to generation gap and in view of shifting of the settlement office, enquiry by the Settlement Officer to the lands of Daminedu Village was left over."
17. Similar statement was made in the pleadings in Writ Petition at Para 7. Without submitting proper claims before the competent authority i.e., Assistant Settlement Officer as provided under Section 11(a) of the Act, one cannot claim any right for grant of ryotwari patta. Admittedly and apparently as pleaded in the writ affidavit, the petitioners have never filed any such claims before the primary and competent authority and there is only a vague assertion that some claims have been filed by their ancestors and 24 no specifics and particulars are mentioned. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot presume that a valid claim for issuance of ryotwari pattas was presented and pending consideration. The memo dated 17.10.2008 which the petitioners sought to enforce merely acknowledge the representation made by petitioners to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and remarks were called for from the 3rd respondent through the 2nd respondent for the purpose of circulating the file to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Though the learned Senior Counsel contended that by this memo, the 1st respondent had instructed the 3rd respondent to make immediate inspection and submit a report, the memo does not indicate any such directions, rather it only seeks specific remarks.
18. The petitioners have also contended that as proceedings in File P1/288/2008 on the file of 2nd respondent instituted by some of them was pending, in which a docket order came to be passed on 17.03.2008 dealt with the issuance of ryotwari patta, therefore, the same has to be considered and construed as proper proceedings pending in relation to grant of ryotwari patta.
19. The first limb of the prayer by which petitioners have questioned the inaction of the 1st respondent in processing the 25 memo is not capable of being granted as the memo merely seeks to call for remarks. There are no substantive proceedings pending with either 1st respondent or 2nd respondent which they are bound to discharge under particular statutory provision, therefore, they are not under any obligation and the petitioners have no legal right to seek enforcement of memo, particularly the manner in which they intended i.e., to conduct inspection and submit report.
20. Insofar as the other limb of prayer which is consequential but more substantive by which petitioners sought direction to respondents 1 to 4 for passing orders on grant of ryotwari pattas in their favour in terms of G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 28.04.2003, the same cannot be granted by this Court for the reason that the petitioners right to claim ryotwari pattas are governed and regulated by provisions of the Act and in particular, in terms of the claim to be made under Section 11(a). Petitioners have not made proper claims as required under Section 11(a), they cannot bypass the statutory provision and approach unconnected and unrelated authorities by way of representations for ascertaining their rights. The petitioners right to claim ryotwari patta depends on the enquiry that is required to be undertaken in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act and while conducting such enquiry, the competent authority 26 would examine as to whether petitioners have satisfied the requirements of being in continuous possession as on the notified date and whether the land to which said claim is made was capable of being granted ryotwari patta. Definitely the respondents 1 to 4 against whom the present direction is sought for are not competent and vested with powers and functions to conduct such enquiry. Though petitioners tried to persuade this Court that the proceedings in File No.P1/288/2008 on the file of 2nd respondent alleged to have been instituted by some of them and the subsequent impugned memo dated 17.10.2008 tantamount to valid claims for grant of ryotwari patta and the same should be treated to be those made in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act r/w Rules, 1973, the said contention deserves to be rejected for two reasons that firstly when statute prescribes that a particular act must be done in a specific manner, it is well established principle that it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way, therefore, when claim has to be instituted by the person claiming ryotwari patta one has to make application as prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Act r/w Rules, 1973 before the Settlement Officer alone and not before any other officer and consequently, that the alleged representations, proceedings either before 27 respondents 2 and 3 would not qualify to be proper claims as contemplated under Section 11(a) r/w. Rules, 1973.
21. The petitioners also contended that there were two resurveys conducted, one in the year 2006 and another in the year 2009 and the said surveys have concluded that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands which were cultivable and therefore, classification of those lands as AWD were required to be rectified, thereby, the petitioners were entitled to claim ryotwari patta against the lands which petitioners are in occupation. In support of the said submission, petitioners have filed Ex.P4 and P5 which are statements relating to the alleged enquiry/survey, however, neither of these exhibits contain any signature or appear to be issued by proper officer competent to certify the same. With respect to the survey conducted in the year 2009, reference is made to the proceedings issued by RDO, dated 01.02.2009 and also proceedings issued by Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, dated 19.02.2009, which according to petitioners were issued in contemplation of conducting survey and accordingly, survey was conducted on 26th and 27th February, 2009. The counter filed by respondents 1 to 4 only confirms that there was survey conducted prior to notification of the village as Inam Estate 28 village which was prior to 1961 and the final survey settlement operations were completed and that the Daminedu Village was published as Inam Estate Village vide A.P.Gazette, dated 15.02.1962. The records filled along with the counter indicates that the lands which are claimed by the petitioners are shown as Government lands and classified as AWD. As the documents produced by petitioners in relation to the so called resurvey conducted in the years 2006 and 2009 are unsinged, the same cannot be taken into consideration. At any rate, even assuming if there was such resurvey as petitioners never made any claim for grant of ryotwari patta and that no proceedings are pending consideration, besides the fact that already an extent of Acres 45.94 cents had been allotted to and assigned to 4th respondent way back in the year 2009 for construction of houses for weaker sections under JNNURM scheme which has substantially been completed and part of land was acquired or used for formation of 150 feet road from Chandragiri to Renigunta and part of land for the purpose of formation of bypass road, question of granting relief as claimed in the present writ petition does not arise.
29
22. This Court is conscious that this is not the appropriate proceedings to go into merits of the claims for the purpose of grant of ryotwari patta, inasmuch as the second limb of the prayer in the writ petition dealt with direction for passing of orders to this effect, the above observations were made and the same have to be confined only for the purpose of disposing of this matter. These findings shall not have any bearing or shall be construed to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of petitioners for grant of ryotwari patta. As this Court has expressed that proper application or proceedings are shown and demonstrably pending before primary or appellate authority concerning the claims for grant of ryotwari patta, the petitioners contention that the subject lands cannot be allotted or assigned to third parties treating that their claims are pending under the guise of memo dated 17.10.2008 does not merit consideration and so far as the contention that in view of circular Memos Ref.No.Spl.A1/3709/79, dated 07.03.1979, Proc.No. 892/J2/80-3, dated 17.07.1980, and D.Dis.No.B3/4527/91, dated 19.03.1991, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot dispossess the petitioners and grant any assignments or handover the subject lands to third parties pending their claims for grant of ryotwari patta, as this Court has already noticed that no 30 such proceedings are shown to be pending either before the primary authority or any appellate authority, petitioners cannot seek aid of the aforesaid circulars. Similarly, the judgment in Dama Kothilingam @ Kotilingaiah's case (supra 1) has also taken note of the fact that in those cases claims were pending before competent authority, so directions were issued not to assign the lands till the disposal of the claims, as the facts of the present case does not disclose any such proceedings are pending, the judgments cited would have no application.
23. Coming to the last submission that they should be extended benefit as granted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 28.04.2003, as rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader, the benefit granted therein was in the peculiar circumstances of that case having regard to the multiple claims and considering that the persons were in occupation as on the cut off date i.e., before 1980, the Government has extended the benefit and issued pattadar passbooks to them, however, in the present case, the petitioners could not produce any document prima facie to show that they are in possession and enjoyment and have title to the same and on the other hand, the record discloses that the subject lands have been recorded as Government lands and classified as AWD, besides 31 substantial part of them have already been allotted either to respondents 4 to 7 for construction of residential houses for weaker sections or part of it has been acquired for roads and other infrastructure projects, therefore, petitioners would stand on a different footing and cannot seek similar benefit. Hence, there is no merit in this Writ Petition No.1499 of 2010 and is hereby dismissed.
24. Coming to the challenge in W.P. No.3049 of 2010, the petitioners instituted the same on the foundation that when their claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act are pending before the 1st respondent, the lands for which such claims were made should not have been allotted and transferred in favour of 4th respondent Corporation vide Memo No.APSHCL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 16.06.2009, which is contrary to the status quo orders granted in file No.P1/288/2008, dated 17.03.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent besides being unconstitutional. Petitioners also made consequential prayer for grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of lands in S.Nos.196/6 to 13, 197/1 to 12, 198/1, 3 to 11, 199/1 & 2, 200/1 & 2, 203/1 to 6, 204/1 to 6, 205/1 to 5, 206/1 & 2, 308/3 to 7, 15 and 16(P) totaling an extent of Ac. 35.53 32 cents situated in Daminedu Village, on par with G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 28.04.2003 .
25. This Court has already recorded finding that petitioners have not produced or demonstrated that they have ever made applications in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act r/w the Rules, 1973, before the competent authority i.e., Settlement Officer in the manner prescribed claiming ryotwari patta either by themselves or by their predecessors. Further, this Court has already considered and expressed that either representations made by them or the Memo dated 17.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent or proceedings in file No.P1/288/2008, dated 17.03.2008, which is alleged to be pending before 2nd respondent would not tantamount to pendency of proper claims. Though petitioners herein referred to the status quo orders dated 17.03.2008 alleged to have been granted by the 2nd respondent in file No.P1/288/2008, dated 17.03.2008, neither they have produced the copy of the petition as filed before the 2nd respondent nor the copy of the status quo order, in the absence of which, this Court cannot presume the existence of any such order. The petitioners themselves filed proceedings dated 05.07.2008 as Ex.P-11, issued by Joint Secretary to CCLA, in response to RTI, which inter alia mentioned that no such orders 33 were ever passed by 2nd respondent. The petitioners have not produced any record to assess the nature of claim and relief sought for before the 2nd respondent. In W.P. No.1499 of 2010, the petitioners themselves have stated that petitioners - 27, 32 and 40 filed claim petitions on 21.04.2008 in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act claiming ryotwari pattas, which was rejected by Joint Collector
-cum- Settlement Officer, Chittoor, by endorsement dated 24.05.2008 and that revision preferred against the said order before Joint Director of Settlement was returned in File No.N.Dis.No.B1/5398/2008, dated 01.07.2008, this claim was with respect to S.No.174/5 to an extent of Acres 2.91 cents. Even this claim was also appears to be not pursued later on and petitioners have kept silent on the same. Therefore, in view of the finding recorded above, as petitioners have not demonstrated that either their claims for the grant of ryotwari patta are pending before the Competent Authority or that they have pre-existing rights in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, the challenge to Memo No.APSHCL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 16.06.2009, by which certain extent of lands were transferred in favour of 4th respondent Corporation fails and accordingly, W.P. No.3049 of 2010 is also dismissed.
34
26. In the result, W.P. Nos.1499 and 3049 of 2010 are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending for consideration, if any, in these cases shall stand closed.
_______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 06.01.2025 SS