Telangana High Court
Dulla Ramunaidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 5 November, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Writ Petition No.2168 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners requesting to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the order, dated 15.12.2016, of the 2nd respondent as illegal, against law and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. A consequential direction to the respondents to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deed documents to the petitioners in respect of their lands is also sought.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, and of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. I have perused the material record.
3. The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a preface to this order, in brief, are as follows:- 'Initially, the petitioners filed respectively S.R.Nos.11(a)1/2008-F2, 11(a)2/2008-F2, 11(a)3/2008-F2 and 11(a)4/2008 F2 before the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, in respect of their respective lands viz., an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in RS.No.17 corresponding to old Sy.no.23/1,2,3; an extent of Ac.02.50 cents Sy.No.17 and 18 part corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1,2,3 and 24 part; Ac.2.42 cents in RS.No.17 and 18 part corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1, 2, 3 and 24 part; Ac.2.42 cents in R.s.No.17 and 18 part MSRM, J 2 WP.No.2168 _2017 corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1,2,3 and24 part; admeasuring an extent of Ac.11.84 cents, in all, in Edumetla Marripalem Village, Parawada Mandal of Visakhapatnam District [hereinafter referred to as 'subject land']. The Joint Collector, by his separate orders, dated 02.02.2008, dismissed the said claims, inter alia, observing that the claims are devoid of merit and also time barred. Aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioners preferred revision petitions in R.P.Nos.81/08/VSP/A2, 80/08/VSP/A2, 82/08/VSP/A2 and 79/08/VSP/A2 respectively before the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, AP. The Commissioner, vide separate orders, dated 15.11.2011, having found that while passing the impugned orders, the Joint Collector had not reasonably examined certain aspects of the matter, remanded the cases to the Joint Collector for de novo enquiry under Section 11(1)(a). In the said remand order, he pointed out the aspects to be examined. Accordingly, the Joint Collector having conducted de novo enquiry, by his common orders, dated 30.06.2012, once again rejected the claims of the petitioners for issuance of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred revision petition in RP.No.34/2012/A before the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, by orders, dated 28.08.2013, dismissed the revision. Aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioners preferred further revision in CCLA's Ref.No.P1/885/2013 before the Commissioner of Appeals. By orders, dated 15.12.2016, the said revision petition was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.'
4. The case of the petitioners, as stated in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner, and as per the submissions made on their behalf, in brief, is as follows: - 'The MSRM, J 3 WP.No.2168 _2017 subject land is a ryoti land. The petitioners' ancestor, Dulla Errasanyasi, was lawfully inducted into the subject land and was in possession and enjoyment of the said land prior to 01.07.1945, which is the crucial date for grant of ryotwari patta. His name was also recorded in Gillman register of the year 1904. In- fact, prior to 1904 also, the land was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' ancestor. The subject land was a patta land; but, not a Gayalu. E. Marripalem village is part of Anandapuram Thana in Vizianagaram Zamin Estate. The said Estate was taken over by the Government, on 12.01.1951, under the provisions of A.P. Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ['the Act', for short] and settlement rates were introduced in E. Marripalem village with effect from 01.07.1959. The ancestors of the petitioners were continuously cultivating the land. The names of ancestors were recorded in Adangal of the village; and, the Tahasildar, Parawada Mandal, in the counter filed in the proceedings before the authorities, admitted that the ancestors of the petitioners were in long standing possession and enjoyment of the subject land for more than 50 years prior to 01.07.1945. The lands are zeroithi lands. The petitioners' ancestors paid cist to the Government. Copies of Land Revenue receipts for Fasalies 1404, 1406 and 1414 along with certified copies and the relevant extract from Gillman Register are filed. There is no limitation to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. There are no rival claimants in this case. The name of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi was recorded in pattadar column no.8 in Gillman Register of 1904, which is a settlement register. The said HFW Gillman, who is a special agent for Government of Madras, with the assistance of the Settlement Officer, after completion of survey operations, settled that, Dulla Yerra Sanyasi was in possession and MSRM, J 4 WP.No.2168 _2017 enjoyment of the land in the year 1904 and was pattadar for old survey numbers 23/1,2,3 and also 24 part, which corresponds to new survey number 17 part and 18 part. Dulla Yerra Sanyasi is a ryot. He had both Kudivaram and Melvaram rights. The purport of the explanation introduced in Section 3 by amending the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, with amendment in the year 1934, is to give occupancy rights to a person who was in occupation for 12 years where there was no other ryot having occupancy rights in the said land. Dulla Yerra Sanyasi, the common ancestor of the petitioners, continued his possession over the subject land till his death. Thereafter, his successors came into possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Even as per the counter of the Tahasildar, Parwada, 'Dulla family' was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for 50 years prior to 01.07.1945. Occupancy rights are heritable. His rights flowed to the present petitioners. When, in the year 1904, as per Gillman's settlement register the subject land was shown as ryoti land and the petitioners' ancestor was a ryot, the recording as against the survey numbers as 'gayalu' or AWD (Assessed Waste Dry) in the revision survey and settlement, which were introduced in the year 1959, is against the purpose and intention of both the Madras Estate Lands Act, 1908, and the provisions of the Act. The recording of the name of Yerra Sanyasi in Gillman Register would attract Sections 167 to 170 of Chapter XI, Survey, Record of Rights and Settlement of Rights in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The entering of the name of Yerra Sanyasi under pattadar column proves that he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and that he was the pattadar and his record of rights had been conclusively proved in respect of old survey numbers 23/1,2,3 and 24 which co-related to revision survey numbers 17 part MSRM, J 5 WP.No.2168 _2017 and 18 part covering entire subject land. Such an important valuable and conclusive proof by means of the document marked as exhibit P3 was brushed aside by the Joint Collector in his orders, dated 30.06.2012, and was not looked into by the Commissioner & DOS in his orders, dated 28.08.2013. Both the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer and the Commissioner & DOS are of the view that the claim of the petitioners is time barred and noted that the word 'gayalu' is recorded in settlement fair adangal. In-fact both the said points are not applicable to the present case of the petitioners. The Joint Collector and the Commissioner & DOS, while dismissing the claims of the petitioners, inter alia, observed that there is no documentary evidence to show that the subject land is ryoti land and that it is in the possession & enjoyment of the 1st petitioner's father or fore-father prior to 01.07.1945. The said observation is absolutely incorrect since HFW Gillman, who is special agent to Government of Madras, with the assistance of Settlement Officer, prepared settlement register popularly known as Gillman register. The said Gillman personally inspected the lands and entered the name of Dulla Erra Sanyasi in column no.8 as pattadar in the Register prepared during 1904. The remaining columns of the said Register also establish that the subject land is a ryoti land. During the resurvey and resettlement, the settlement authorities did not refer to Gillman register and made erroneous entry for the subject land as Gayalu. The Joint Collector also observed in his orders that the father of the 1st petitioner obtained provisional patta from the then Tahasildar, Anakapalli, during 1979 and hence, he cannot claim right under the provisions of the Act for Government land subsequently. In this regard, it is to be noted that settlements were introduced in E. Marripalem village, which is an estate village, MSRM, J 6 WP.No.2168 _2017 in the year 1949. The settlement officer, without referring to basic settlement register like Gillman register and without referring to the various columns in the said register, erroneously entered the word 'Gayalu'. It is incorrect to state that if rough or provisional patta is issued, the petitioners are disentitled for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. In-fact, by mere issuance of provisional patta, the Estate land does not become private patta; and, only on grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, the land becomes private patta land and issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed documents become necessary. The Joint Collector in his orders observed that claim petition for grant of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act is not submitted in time as required under Rule 47(4) of the Act. Further, the Commissioner also in his orders dealt with the aspect of limitation and held that this Court in WP.no.25504 of 1995 categorically stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to all the proceedings under the provisions of the Act. As per settled law reported in 1973 ALT 246, in the absence of any provision being enacted or any rule being made under the rule making power prescribing the period of limitation, it would not be open to the settlement officer to reject the application for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act on the ground of limitation. It was also held that under the Act, the authorities are not the Courts in order to apply the Limitation Act. In WP.No.25504 of 1995, this Court did not overrule or did not set aside the above said settled law. Thus, the law laid down in the said writ petition is not applicable. In-fact, in the said writ petition, this Court directed the Settlement Officer to dispose of the application under Section 11[a] on its merit. As per settled law reported in AnWR 1962[2] 103 when possession of the ryot had been recognized in the MSRM, J 7 WP.No.2168 _2017 lands, orders ought to have been passed on merits rather than relying on the limitation. The Joint Collector and the Commissioner & DoS further observed that the claimants have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their claims to consider the land as ryoti land and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim settlement patta under Section 11(a) of the Act and that the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of their contention that they were inducted into the lands as on 01.07.1945 and continued to cultivate the land upto taking over of the Estate. In-fact, the petitioners filed exhibits P1 to P12. Exhibit P3 - Gillman Register sufficiently proves that the land is ryoti land. The definition under Section 11(a) of the Act itself shows that all the lands before notified date ought to have been included in the holding and to which ryot is entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. In the definition, the word 'gayalu' or 'AWD' is not stated but for lanka lands ryots are not entitled except after the examination by the Government in respect of such lands. From the above definition, it can also be said that the possession of the ryots before the notified date ought to have been considered with due respect to the registers like Gillman register and the possession of the ryots and the cultivation of the land by the ryots. The Joint Collector discussed in his order, Article 31B of IX Schedule of Constitution of India. The said Article pertains to Land Acquisition proceedings and is no way connected to proceedings under Section 11[a] of the Act. The Joint Collector could not appreciate the documentary evidence under exhibits P1 to P12. Ryotwari patta was granted in proceedings no.SR.No.11A/3/94/VSP, dated 20.02.2004, with regard to the adjacent land of the same village in Sy.no.8/1 to an extent of Ac.7.20 cents. But the subject land was recorded as 'AWD' or 'Gayalu'. The said entry is an erroneous entry MSRM, J 8 WP.No.2168 _2017 made by the settlement officer. The Joint Collector also raised a point that B Memo was issued. In-fact under Section 2(c&d) of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, there are certain exceptions. Abolished Estates are exempted; for the same either B memos or notices cannot be issued. Mere writing the word as encroachers is absolutely against legal principles and principles of natural justice. The Tahalsildar, Parawada, in his counter admitted the following points: "E.Marripalem village is an Estate village. It was taken over by the Government, on 12.01.1951, under the provisions of the Act. Settlement operations were introduced in 1951. It is a zeroithi land. The ancestors of the revision petitioners were cultivating the land since 1904 onwards till date by raising cashew and mango trees. The names of ancestors of the petitioners were recorded in Gillman register. The ancestors of the petitioners were cultivating the lands since 50 years prior to 01.07.1945, that is, the date of the coming into force of the Act. The petitioners are still in possession and enjoyment of the land. The names of the petitioner's ancestors by name Dulla Appala Swamy and Dulla Appra Rao have been recorded in the revenue records. In the year 1979, the then Tahasildar also issued provisional pattas by recognizing the possession of the petitioners' ancestors and till date the possession of the petitioners is recognized by the Government. The names of Dulla Mula Raju, Dulla Ramanaidu, Dulla Koteswara Rao, Dulla Venkata Raju, and Dulla Apparao were recorded in respect of an extent of Ac.2.10 cents each in Sy.no.17. Whereas in respect of an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.no.18/2 the name of Dulla Adeyya and in respect of an extent of Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.no.18/3 the name of Dulla Maha Lakshmi and in respect of an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.no.18/4 the name of Paidayya are recorded. The above MSRM, J 9 WP.No.2168 _2017 survey numbers correspond to old survey nos.23/1, 2,3 and 24P of E. Marripalem village. As seen from Gillman Register, against these survey numbers 'AWD or Gayalu' is not recorded. Even in old sy.no.23/1,2,3 Ac.2.82 cents, Ac.6.56 cents and Ac.1.11 cents respectively admeasuring a total extent of Ac.10.40 cents have been recorded in the names of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi and Gudireddy Achanna; and, in old sy.no.24, Ac.3.49 cents was recorded in favour of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi, S/o.Paidayya. Though petitioners produced exhibits P1 to P12, the claims of the petitioners were rejected by both the Joint Collector and the Commissioner & DOS on the ground that they are time barred." In any view of the matter, the orders of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Commissioner & DoS and the Commissioner of Appeals are arbitrary, illegal and against all probabilities of the case and the principles of natural justice.
5. On 23.01.2017, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and while adjourning the matter to four weeks, at the request of the learned Government Pleader for instructions, directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day till then. On 09.02.2017, this Court admitted the writ petition and extended the afore-said status quo orders until further orders.
6. Requesting to vacate the afore-said interim order, the respondents 1 to 4 filed WVMP.No.1276 of 2017.
7. However, a joint request was made to dispose of the writ petition instead of the vacate stay petition.
MSRM, J 10 WP.No.2168 _2017
8. The case of the respondents as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent - Tahasildar and the submissions made on their behalf, in brief, are as follows:
"Consequent on the enactment of the Act, Vizianagaram Estate was abolished and all the villages in Visakhapatnam District were taken over by the Government. E. Marripalem village is one of the Estate villages in Vizianagaram Estate taken over by the Government, on 12.01.1951, under the provisions of the Act. After the abolition, the resurvey and settlement operations in respect of villages of erstwhile Vizianagaram Estate were conducted during the years 1955-59; and, the new survey and settlement records of E.Marripalem village were introduced from 01.07.1959. According to the Settlement Fair Adangal [SFA] of E. Marripalem village, the classification of the land measuring Ac.10.50 cents covered by Sy.no.17 was registered as Gayalu (AWD). Since the land belongs to the Government, the then Tahasildar, Anakapalli, assigned the following extents in Sy.no.17 in favour of the individuals during the year 1979, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Sl.No. Name of the Survey no. Classification Extent
assignee
(Ac.cts)
1 Dulla 17 - part AWD 4.50
Ramunaidu
2 Dulla Venkata 17 - part AWD 2.00
Swamy
3 Dulla 17 - part AWD 2.00
Mahalakshmi
Total 8.50
MSRM, J
11 WP.No.2168 _2017
Subsequently, Dulla Ramunaidu and three others jointly filed a claim, on 25.05.2007, before the then Tahasildar, Parawada, for regularization of provisional pattas for the lands admeasuring Ac.10.50 cents in S.No.17 and Ac.1.42 cents in Sy.nos.18./2, 3 & 4 of E. Marripalem village stating that the lands are under their cultivation and enjoyment since last 45-50 years by raising dry crops, mango & cashew topes and that the said lands are ryotwari in nature and that their late father Adeyya cultivated the said lands prior to them. The Tahasildar, in his endorsement, dated 26.05.2007, informed the claimants that the schedule lands are classified as 'gayalu' as per the entries in SFA. Thereafter the petitioners have filed their individual claims before the Joint Collector & Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari patta, under Section 11(a) of the Act. The Joint Collector, after detailed examination and enquiry, rejected the claims of the individuals, by his orders, dated 02.02.2008, inter alia, stating the lands under claim were classified as 'Gayalu' as per the revenue - settlement records and no recorded evidence showing that the lands are under possession of the petitioners or their predecessors as on the crucial date i.e., 01.07.1945, notified under the Act, were produced by them. The claimants preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner & Director of Settlements. The Commissioner remanded the cases to the Joint Collector for conducting fresh de novo enquiry. The Joint Collector accordingly heard the matter afresh; and, by his orders, dated 30.06.2012, he had rejected the claims of the petitioners. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner & DOS were also dismissed. The further revision filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner of Appeals was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Parawada mandal was MSRM, J 12 WP.No.2168 _2017 established in the year 1985. The adangal (V.A.No.3, 31 columns) was introduced from the year 1995 and it is a register being maintained separately for each fasali year, while showing the details of cultivation of crops ryot- wise/S.Nos wise, etcetera. Since the lands covered by Sy.no.17 and 18 were assigned to the petitioners under the provisions under BSO - 15 subject to certain terms and conditions, their names were recorded in the adangal as enjoyers for the particular fasali. But, this is not evidence of their possession over the subject land prior to the notified date i.e., 01.07.1945. The land revenue receipts for the faslies 1404, 1406 and 1414 relates to the years after 1994. Entries in Gillman Register will not show the enjoyment and possession of the petitioners prior to the crucial/notified date. Hence, their claims were rejected by the Joint Collector & Settlement Officer as well as the appellate/revisional authorities. The case laws referred by the petitioners do not relate to the issue of enjoyment and possession of the petitioners prior to the notified date. To consider the claims of the petitioners under Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, the evidence showing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners prior to the notified date is the main criteria. The petitioners could not produce such evidence either before the settlement officer or appellate or revisional authorities. The Commissioner of Appeals observed that the survey settlement register i.e., Gillman register pertaining to the schedule land, Ac.6.56 cents, was registered in the name of Budireddy Atchanna and that the said person is no way related to the petitioners and that one Dulla Yerra Sanyasi's name was registered in the very same register and that petitioners have stated that they are the legal heirs of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi and that the petitioners failed to produce the genealogy tree or the legal heir certificate to establish that they MSRM, J 13 WP.No.2168 _2017 are the legal heirs of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi. The Gillman register pertains to the year 1903. As per the provisions of the Act, the petitioners or their ancestors must be in possession and enjoyment as on 01.07.1945 and the claimed lands must be cultivable in nature. Prior to the abolition of the Estates, the Estate land holder must have leased out the lands for the fasali and collected the rents or the cist to estate. If at any point of time, the ryot fails to pay the cist / rent to the Estate, immediately, the ryot will have to quit the lands and the lands will be given to the others. The Commissioner of Appeals has also noted in his orders, dated 15.12.2016, that every ryot, who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, has to fulfill the requirement of continuous possession and enjoyment of either the claimant or predecessor prior to 01.07.1945, till the notified date of the Estate and that the land must be ryoti in nature and the claimant is a ryot. For this purpose, the petitioners should produce valid recorded evidence before the authorities. The petitioners failed to produce such evidence in support of their claims. The primary authority i.e., The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, appellate authority - Commissioner & DOS, and the revisional authority - Commissioner of Appeals have examined the claims of the petitioners, in detail, with reference to the recorded evidences thereof and also examined the contents in the counter / written statement filed by the Tahasildar, in detail, and rejected / dismissed the claims of the petitioners. There are no merits in the writ petition. The interim order may be vacated and the writ petition may be dismissed."
9. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. I have gone through the material record and the decisions cited. From the pleadings, submissions and material documents, the following aspects are noticeable:
MSRM, J 14 WP.No.2168 _2017 "The subject land is situated in E. Marripalem village, which was an Estate village of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Estate and formed part of erstwhile Sabbaravam Taluq. The Estate was admittedly taken over by the Government, on 12.01.1951, under the provisions of the Act [Act of 1948]." 9.1 The petitioners claimed the reliefs in the writ petition, inter alia, on the basis of the following grounds: - 'The 1st petitioner and his father and prior to them their ancestors were in long standing possession and enjoyment of the schedule land since long prior to 01.07.1945, which is the crucial date for granting of ryotwari patta, under Section 11(a) of the Act. The ancestors of the petitioners continuously cultivated the subject lands by raising dry crops, cashew nut and mango trees. The names of their ancestors are recorded in the adangal and village records. The Tahasildar in the counter filed in the subject proceedings admitted the long standing possession & enjoyment of the ancestors of the petitioners over the subject lands for over fifty years prior to the said date. The lands are zeroithi lands. The ancestors of the petitioners paid cist to the Government. Land Revenue receipts for fasalies 1404, 1406 & 1414 are filed. The name of the ancestor, Dulla Yerra Sanyasi, was recorded in respect of the subject land in Gillman register, a copy of which is filed by the petitioners. There are no rival claimants. The total extent of land is Ac.11.84 cents. Indisputably, as per counter of the Tahasildar, during the year 1979, the then Tahasildar, Anakapalli, granted provisional pattas in respect of Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.no.17 part in the name of Dulla Ramu Naidu - 1st petitioner and in respect of Ac.2.00 cents in the said survey number 17 part in the name of Dulla Venkata Swamy besides in respect of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in the said survey number 17 part in the name of Dulla Mahalakshmi, that is, for a total MSRM, J 15 WP.No.2168 _2017 extent of Ac.8.50 cents, recognizing the possession of the members of 'Dulla' family. The land is a ryoti land. And, once the land is of ryoti character, its character will not change. Mere entries in the re-survey and re-settlement register classifying the land as 'gayalu' is inconsequential. The Gillman register of 1903, which is an authenticated document, supports the claim of the petitioners. The cultivation accounts of the pre abolition period show continuous possession of the ancestors of the petitioners and later of the father of the 1st petitioner. Since the possession is continuing and the land is a ryoti land and the character does not change, the question of limitation does not arise. Entries in the Fair Settlement register show cultivation of the lands by the families of the petitioners. The relationship of the petitioners with the ancestors and that they are members of 'Dulla' family is not disputed before the officers, who passed the successive impugned orders. Any Karanam's copy of re-settlement adangal of the village is to be printed in diglott and if it is not so, it shall not be accepted as an authenticated document more particularly when it is not coming from the custody of the Karanam or the village officer.' 9.2 Whereas the case of the respondents is this: - 'After taking over of the subject Estate village by the Government, on 12.01.1951, under the provisions of the Act, all the erstwhile villages of Visakhapatnam District were resurveyed during the years 1955 to 1959. New survey and settlement records were introduced from 01.07.1959, for all villages including E. Marripalem village. In that settlement fair adangal the classification of the subject land is mentioned as 'gayalu (AWD)'. Therefore, the land is not a ryoti land. It is a Government land. The petitioners could not produce any record to show possession and MSRM, J 16 WP.No.2168 _2017 cultivation of lands by them or by their ancestors prior to the crucial date, 01.07.1945. Their belated claim is rightly rejected by the officers concerned.' 9.3 Before proceeding further, be it noted that the entry in the Gillman register, which was based on the survey conducted in the year 1903, is undisputed. The issuance of the provisional patta is also undisputed. In the earliest record, the land was classified as ryoti land is not in dispute. How the land once classified as ryoti land is later classified as 'gayalu/AWD' or as Government land remains unexplained. There are no rival claimants.
10. Now, it is apt to refer to the relevant legal position.
The decision in Dama Kotilingam @ Kotilingaiah v. Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and another1 deals with the settled proposition of law that when once the land is a ryoti land in an Estate, the rights of the ryot do not get extinguished and the person, who is a ryot, is entitled to a patta and that in regard to ryoti lands in an Estate no right, title or interest of a ryot stands transferred and vest in the Government. In the case at hand, since there is evidence that the land is a ryoti land, it follows that the ryot, whose right is not extinguished, is entitled to a patta. The decision in Lingareddy Ramakrishna Reddy and others v. Director of Settlements, Hyderabad and others2 deals with the proposition of law that prior to the abolition of the Estates under the Act the lands were transferable and heritable and the legal heirs of the original ryot step into the shoes of the ryot, being the legal heirs. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners and it is undisputed that the Tahasildar, Parawada, reported to the RDO, Visakhapatnam, that his enquiry revealed that 1 2003(1) ALT 1 (DB) 2 1997(4) ALT 409 MSRM, J 17 WP.No.2168 _2017 during the year 1979, the then Tahasildar, Anakapalle, issued a provisional patta for an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.no.17 to Dulla Ramu Naidu and that he is having three sons and that they are having Ac.1.50 cents of zeroithi land adjacent to the provisional patta land and that they are also cultivating the land in sy.no.18/1,2,3 admeasuring Ac.1.53 cents and that their names are recorded in adangal and village account no.4C. The legal position coupled with the facts justify the claim of the petitioners that but for their possession and enjoyment, the provisional patta ought not to have been granted and that the same establishes their possession over the subject land and also the further fact that relationship with Dulla Yeerra Sanyansi is not in dispute. In-fact, the order of the Joint Collector, dated 02.02.2008, does not show that in the written statement of the Tahasildar, the relationship is disputed, is one of the contentions of the petitioners. The decision in Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others v. Indupuru Raghava Reddy and others3 is relied upon in support of the proposition that waste land has a well defined legal connotation and that in the present context it means 'barren or desolate land' which is unfit for use or which is worthless but is not a land which is uncultivated. The decision in Dokiseela Ramulu v. Sri Sangameswara Swamy varu and others4 is relied upon to show the object of grant of ryotwari patta under the Act. The said decision supports the proposition that every ryot is automatically entitled for a ryotwari patta in respect of estate land if he is in possession of such land on the crucial date and before the notified date, 01.07.1945. The decision in Penta Appala Naidu v. The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, 3 2012(2) ALD 164 (DB) 4 2017(1) HLT 1 (SC) MSRM, J 18 WP.No.2168 _2017 Hyderabad5 deals with the proposition that in the absence of any statutory provision or Rule regarding limitation, the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal, which are not Courts, cannot import provisions of limitation into the enquiries under the Act and, therefore, it should not be open to the Settlement Officer to reject the claims of the petitioners on the ground of limitation. The decision in Gopalaswami Ayyangar v. Athamanathaswami Devasthanam6 supports the propositions that once the lands are ryoti lands, the lands remain so unless there was a conversion into private lands; and, that the recognized categories of lands in an Estate are either private lands or ryoti lands and that in an Estate, there will not be any Government lands. Therefore, in the case on hand, the question of classifying the subject land as Government land or Gayalu or AWD is illegal and untenable. In Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) and others v. Kanchubriki Parvathamma and others7, the facts of the case reflect that the rough patta that was granted to the ancestors of the parties in that case clearly reflected a link between it; and, hence, the contention that the rough patta in that case is unconnected with Section 11 of the Act was not countenanced. The decision in Ramji Ram and others v. Bansi Raut and others8 is relied upon in support of the contention that zeroiti means proprietor's private land and that the entries in the record of rights that the lands are zeroiti shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. It is rightly contended that in the case on hand there is no record produced to show how the subject land, which was once a ryoti land, stood converted as Gayalu land of the Government.
5 1973 ALT 246 6 1956 Law Suit (Mad)335 7 2009(1) ALT 445 (DB) 8 1925 Patna 241 MSRM, J 19 WP.No.2168 _2017
11. Reverting to the facts of the case, the crucial date as is admitted by both parties is 01.07.1945. The petitioners are able to produce record showing the nature of the land as a ryoti land and their possession prior to the crucial date and as on the crucial date. They were also granted pattas for a portion of the land is also evident from the counter affidavit of the Tahasildar filed on behalf of the respondents. That apart, the record, on which the Government relies upon to contend that the land is a Gayalu, is, 'the re-survey and re-settlement record'; the basis for the said record was the survey done in the year 1959; the said record is a post abolition record. Therefore, it does not indicate that the land is classified as Government land or Gayalu on the crucial date. On the contra, there is sufficient evidence to safely conclude that the land is a ryoti land and was & is in possession of the petitioners and their ancestors before and also on the crucial date.
12. On the above analysis and having regard to the legal position obtaining, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The exercise necessary to be undertaken as a sequel to this order shall be undertaken and completed within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 05.11.2018 Vjl