Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

An analysis of the relevant provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970 reveals that ryotwari patta may be claimed by two classes of persons--(a) by any ryot in respect of the lands which were properly included or ought to have been so included in his holdings except the lands in respect of which any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other extant law of the State relating to grant of ryotwari patta; and by persons who were entitled to ryotwari patta under 1948 Act. This class of persons would be entitled to a patta on fulfilling the specified pre-conditions. These preconditions are - (1) The land should have been continuously in the occupation of that person from the notified date (Explanation to Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970 defined the expression 'notified date' by reference to Section 2(10) of 1948 Act); (2) such person has been in continuous possession or occupation of the land for not less than eight years prior to the commencement of Regulation 2 of 1970; and (3) such possession or occupation is not void or illegal under Amendment 1959 Regulation or any other extant law.

(C) Since the land in question is admittedly part of an estate taken over under the 1948 Act, the petitioner herein could only have claimed a ryotwari patta on the foundation of her predecessor-in-title, Chebrolu Dharmaiah's entitlement to such a patta qua the first proviso to Section 7 of Regulation" 2 of 1970. Since the lands comprised in a former estate are outside the purview of Section 7(1) of Regulation 2 of 1970, the petitioner could not have claimed a patta as a general right. One of the pre-conditions for grant of patta is that the petitioner's possession or occupation is not void or illegal under Amendment 1959 Regulation. Under Section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970, the Settlement Officer or the appellate authority, the Director of Settlements, is obligated to record a satisfaction that the claim for ryotwari patta is not void under any law applicable to the scheduled areas, which necessarily means void under Amended 1959 Regulation, (D) Neither the order of the Settlement Officer dated 30-9-1977 in SR No.570 of 1977, denying the ryotwari patta to the petitioner, nor the order of the appellate authority dated 6-4-1981 in Andhra Pradesh No.375 of 1977 granting the petitioner a ryotwari patta, nor the alleged agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968 nor the registered sale deed dated 21-7-1971, have been filed in this writ petition despite relief claimed being in proceedings, in the nature of certiorari. The respondent-State has also not produced the records.