Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The District Collector vs Commissioner Of Appeals In ... on 22 December, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
APHC010496132024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 27340 OF 2024
Between:
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Visakhapatnam District.
2. The Tahsildar,, Pendurthi Mandal, VIshakapatnam District.
...Petitioners
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, Chief Commissioner of Land
Administration, APIIC Towers, Magalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Valluri Soma Sekhar Reddy, s/o Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o Flat No. 4504,
4th Block, Vasavi Brundavanam Apartments, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Old Methar
Factory Line, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Rep.by its G.P.A Holder
3. Patan Matheen Khan, S/o.Patan Mohammad Khan, Aged 38 years, R/o.
D.No.5-59-4/2, Kobaldpet, 4th Line, Guntur Town, Guntur District
4. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Rep. by its
Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Special Deputy Tahsildar Inams, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra
Pradesh.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI 2 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 The Court made the following ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to the order passed vide Progs.No.Sett-ll(1)/180/2023, dt.28.12.2023 by the 1st Respondent i.e., Commissioner of Appeals, O/o.Chief Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 14-A of The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 as the same is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of the Constitution of India and to quash/set-aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass such..."
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The District Collector filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the orders dated 28.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.1. The whole controversy issue involved in this writ petition is that initially the petitioners / respondents herein are bonafide purchasers filed an application before The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam District and primary authority under Section 3(3) of The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (in short „the Act‟). Wherein, the primary authority has considered the application and rejected with the following observation:
"In view of the above, the land measuring an extent of Ac.7.20 cents in Sy.No.24/3/D2 of Cheemalapalli Village of Pendurthi Mandal has not been considered as Inam land and is not satisfied the section 3 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 2(c) of I.A. Act, 1956. Therefore I opined that no further go into other questions under section 3 of 1.A.Act, 1956 i.e., the subject land is in Ryotwari, Zamindari or Inam Village as the village was already declared as 'not an inam estate' and the then Special Deputy Tahsldar (Inams), Visakhapatnam has already passed a decision in Form-II that the Cheemalapalli Village is an Inam Village and the subject land is not held by the institution as per the Inam B-Register of Cheemalapalli Village of Pendurthi Mandal"
4. As against the respondents herein filed an appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act before the respondent No.5. The said appeal is also been considered and rejected with the following order dated 01.08.2023:
"He further stated that the pursuance to the provisions of the A.P. Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the Primary Tribunal & Tahsildar, Pendurthi has conducted enquiries U/s 3(3) of the act and declared the Cheemalapalli Village as the Inam Village and the land therein are held by Institution (SVLN Devasthanam) vide his Proceedings in AlA No.55/77 dt. 02.01.1978.
He further submitted that, as per the FMB record, the Sy.No.24 of Cheemalapalli Village comprised of only two sub-divisions i.e., Sy.No.24/1 and 24/2 with a total extent of Ac 52.56 Cts. The extent of Sub-divisions No.24/1 and 24/2 are Ac 7.75 Cts and Ac 44.81 respectively as per the records available in Tahsildar's Office. There is no such sub-divison no.24/3 emanated as per the revenue records available Tahsildar's Office.
He further submitted that a Ryotwari Patta in Form-VIII for an extent of land Ac 7.75 Cts covered by Sy.No.24/1 along with other lands in Cheemalapalli Village was given in favour of S.V.L.N. Devasthanam under the provisions laid u/s 7(1) of the A.P.Inams (Abolition & Conversion Into Ryotwari) act, 1956. The remaining land Ac 44.81 Cts covered by Sy.No.24/1 (Banjar) was declared as vested with the Government free from encumbrances u/s 2(A) of the Act, 1956.
The 3rd respondent has further stated that there is provision that the tenants and inamdars are eligible to file claims for grant of Ryotwari 4 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 Patta for the inam lands in all the eligible cases, subject to production of valid documentary evidence showing about the occupancy of such claimants on 07.01.1948. But, neither the petitioners/ Successors has not filed any claim as required u/s 7(1) of A.P. Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 before the Primary Tribunal & Tahsildar, Pendurthy or Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams RDO's Office, Visakhapatnam requesting for grant of Ryotwari Patta for the land claimed by them in Sy.No.24 of Cheemalapalli village of Pendurthi Mandal.
The 1st respondent have issued orders vide A.I.P.No.1772/2022/ SDT(I) dated 04.04.2023, and stated that the land measuring an extent of Ac 7.20 Cts in Sy.No.24/3/02 of Cheemalapalli Village of Pendurthy Mandal has not been considered as Inam Land and is not satisfied the section 2 C of I.A. Act 1956. Therefore their opined that no further go into other questions under section 3 of I.A. Act 1956 ie., the subject land is in Ryotwari, Zamindari or Inam Village as the village was already decalred as „not an Inam Estate' and the then Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam has already passed a decision in Form-ll that the Cheemalapalli Village is an Inam Village and the subject land is not held by the institution as per the Inam B-Register of Cheemalapalli Village of Pendurthi Mandal.
In view of the above it is opined that there is no need to interfere the orders passed by The Primary Authority i.e., The Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Inam) Visakhapatnam Vide Α.Ι.Ρ.Νο.1772/2022/SDT(I) dated 04.04.2023, measuring an extent of Ac 7.20 Cts in Sy.No.24/3D2 of Cheemalapalli Village of Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District."
5. As against the respondents have preferred revision under Section 14-A before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has considered the revision and passed the following order:
"8.The very basic document i.e; Estate Collector Proceedings dated 24.11.44 were admittedly obtained by the RP/GPA holder from State Archives Department on 24.4.2019 i.e; for submission of claim u/s 5 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 7(1) of Inam Abolition Act before the SDT (Inams) in October 2022. The contention of the Government Pleader that the long delay in filing of claim before SDT (Inams) has not been explained nor condonation sought has credence in fact other than Simhachalam temple i.e., R3 no other claim has been submitted to SDT(Inams) seeking Ryotwari patta for lands (banjar) u/s 24/2 or other sub divisions by any of the so called predecessors in interest of subject land.
9. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam vide report dt: 02.05.1978 informed that Land reforms Tribunal ordered that an extent of Acs 17.68 cents under survey number 24/3D2 of Cheemalapalli Village stands reverted to owner Simhachalam Devastanam but declared Puvvada Venkateswararao has not handed over the land to Devastanam inspite of repeated reminders and started developing a layout unauthorizedly in land under survey number 24/3D2.
10. The revision petitioner claimed Ryotwari Patta based on possession in Banjar by way of auction of sale of occupancy rights. In support of this contention, the Hon'ble AP High Court orders in the WP No.25969 and 26937 and 27015 of 2009 were cited. The High Court in the said orders allowed the writ petitions duly setting aside the Commissioner orders of remanding the case to SDT(Inams) as earlier the Assistant Settlement Officer has granted patta in 1952 and The Board of Revenue also concurred. Where as in the instant case the primary authority i.e., SDT(Inams) has rejected the claim for Ryotwari patta on the ground of subject land being Banjar Land and vested with Government as per the provisions under section 2 A of Inam Abolition Act. It is further opined that the auction proceedings cannot be considered as grant of Inam. The appellate authority opined there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the primary authority....
In the light of elaborate discussion on facts, rule of Law and Hon'ble High Court orders in Bujjamma case and LSN Murthy case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of Ryothwari patta in view of the similarly placed lands under Sy.No.27 of Cheemalapalli village. Hence, both the impugned orders i.e., the orders of the RDO., Visakhapatnam passed in D.Dis.No.605/2022/ LRDT, dated 01-08-2023 and the order of the Special Deputy 6 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 Tahsildar, (Inam) Visakhapatnam passed in A.I.P.No.1772/2022/ 5DT(I) dated 04.04.2023 are hereby set aside."
6. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that when the primary authority has considered the issue and declared that the subject land not come under the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act. Once, the primary authority has rejected declaring that the subject property would not come under Section 2(c) of the Act, the revisional authority ought not have gone into the merits and decided the revision that too without deciding whether the land would come under purview of Section 2(c) or not. Further, the reliance made by the respondents for their claim under the provisions of the Act vide document No.4 of 2000 not registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam. Further the Sub-Registrar has also made communication that the document No.4 of 2000 was retrieved with CCA and it is found that the document has not been tallied. In the said circumstances, the revisional authority could not have entertained the revision and decided the revision by setting aside the order of primary authority.
8. In reply to the said contentions, Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that in fact, the revisional authority has relied on the findings recorded by the High Court in L.S.N. Murthy and others Vs. Commissioner of Appeals in W.P.Nos.25969 7 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 of 2009 & batch, dated 25.09.2023, wherein the land is situated in Survey No.27 of Chimalapalli Village and it is declared that the subject land vested to the predecessors of the claimants by way of sale occupancy rights in 1944 and sale proceedings could not be considered as grant of inam apart from holding that subject lands Banjar requires re-examination because Section 2(c) states that inam lands means any land in respect of which grant of inam has been made, confirmed or recognised by Government. Whereas, admittedly, in the instant case the occupancy rights have been auctioned by the Estate Collector and purchaser being successful bidders by paid full consideration and also the said Village is already declared as not an Inam Estate and declared that the petitioners are entitled to ryotwari patta in Survey No.27 of Chimalapalli Village.
9. Further, learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the orders passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.No.25969 of 2009 and batch. While disposing the batch of writ petitions vide order dated 25.09.2023, this Court has categorically held that authorities have no jurisdiction to look into the action conducted in 1945 and the pattas granted in 1952 by the Assistant Settlement Officer and Board of Revenue. In fact, in the instant case also, the petitioners‟ predecessors who have purchased the rights in auction conducted in 1944 and based on the said rights, the Assistant Commissioner has already considered and issued pattas along with the petitioners in the said writ petitions i.e., in the year 1952. Once, the issue is already decided by the 8 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 competent authorities and this Court with regard to the very same land and declared that it comes under Section 2 (c), the revisional authority has no right to take any contrary view. Further, with regard to the adjacent lands, the revisional authority as well as the divisional authority has already declared that when there is no direction for grant of patta, the petitioners have approached this Court in the batch of writ petitions and this court has considered and declared that they are entitled of ryotwari pattas.
10. Considering the submissions made by both parties, as well as perusal of orders passed by this Hon‟ble Court in above referred judgments and also the orders passed by the primary authority, in fact, the primary authority has rejected the claim of the respondents only on the ground that subject land would not come under the purview of Section 2(c) of the Act and hence he is not inclined to go into the other aspects.
11. In the said circumstances, left with no option, all the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 has been set aside remanding the matter to the primary authority i.e., the respondent No.6 to consider the claim petition filed by the petitioners based on the observations made by the revisional authority with regard to facts and also orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.25969 of 2009 & batch in L.S.N. Murthy and others Vs. Commissioner of Appeals and pass appropriate orders for grant of pattas according to the provisions of the Act and the said exercise should be completed within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9W.P.No.27340 of 2024
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 22.12.2025 NSM 10 W.P.No.27340 of 2024 110 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 27340 OF 2024 22.12.2025 NS M