Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as per G.O. Ms. No.548. dated 28.04.2003 and for a consequential direction."

(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 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.

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 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.

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 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: