Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

as_2533_2001&921_2002 notice to owners in a suomoto enquiry. The alleged change is not even in a primary enquiry as seen from records, but in an alleged appeal by one V.Kondaiah filed against the grant of conditional patta and requesting for an unconditional patta, the Assistant Settlement Officer seems to have granted a conditional patta to V.Kondaiah who filed an appeal against the same Settlement Officer requesting for removal of conditions and for grant of a permanent patta and the Settlement Officer seems to have directed change of category of the schedule land to poramboke even without notice to parties effected by the said change. These facets were revealed in the trial of O.S.No.149 of 1977 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kakinada, where the records were filed. But the taxes on the respective lands were being collected from plaintiffs on zeroyiti lands upto 1976. Hence plaintiffs and others were also not aware of such wrong classification.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 paramount title holder of the said lands. Some of the ryots might have been granted conditional pattas for the lands by the Survey and Settlement authorities. Later the mistake was rectified by the Director of Settlements, who cancelled these conditional pattas as the lands are Cheruvu Padaka lands and hence treated them as poramboke lands. There is no change in the category of classification of lands. The Director of Settlement held that it is a poramboke land, but not a ryoti land based on the estate records. They denied that these defendants 2 to 4 have trespassed into the lands in the possession of the plaintiffs after 29.6.1976 claiming that the Government granted them one-year lease for the said lands. In fact, this defendant Sangham was constituted in the year 1974, and this defendant was granted lease of certain lands and thereafter, there were some changes in the allotment of lands and ultimately, the said extent of Ac.60.18 cents was leased out to this Sangham in 1976. The plaintiffs have to prove their right, title and possession and enjoyment of the said lands and that the plaintiffs‟ suit is barred by time. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

as_2533_2001&921_2002 defendants title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere."

22. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule lands are zeroyiti lands and zeroyiti pattas were granted by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and in the year 1960, there was a survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas to the suit land. The plaintiffs relied on Exs.A.81 and A.89. Ex.A.81 is the patta said to have been issued in the year 1958 in the name of Pedapudi Ramulu / 9th plaintiff for Ac.1.22 cents by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Ex.A.89 is in the name of Chodisetti Bangaraiah, which was said to have been issued in the year 1935. The said Chodisetti Bangaraiah or his children are not parties to the suit. Ex.A.37 stands in the name of plaintiff No.24. Ex.A.52 patta stands in the name of Nacharla Gangaraju. The said Nacharla Gangaraju is not plaintiff in the suit. Except plaintiff Nos.9 and 24, none of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title, filed the alleged pattas before the trial Court. The 9th plaintiff / P.W.8 filed his alleged patta said to have been issued in the year 1958 and its extent is Ac.1.22 cents. As per the evidence of 9th plaintiff / P.W.8, his family used to have Ac.1.40 cents only in suit schedule land and the suit land was given by the King to their parents. The 9th plaintiff also relied on Exs.A.53 to A.73 land revenue receipts. All the said land revenue receipts except Ex.A.70, are much prior to 15.05.1972. Ex.A.70 is dated 15.05.1972. The 9th plaintiff / P.W.8 admits in cross-examination that they were not in possession from 1976 and they voluntarily vacated the suit land and then the Government taken over the possession of the suit land and part of the schedule land was given by the Government to the Sangham people. His evidence clearly shows that they themselves voluntarily vacated the suit land without any protest and the Government has taken over the possession and later part of the said lands were given to the Sangham people. Except the 9th plaintiff and 24th plaintiff, VGKR, J.

VGKR, J.

as_2533_2001&921_2002

25. It is the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint itself that the suit schedule lands are zeroyiti lands. No document is filed by the plaintiffs to show that it is a zeroyiti land. Another contention taken by the plaintiffs is that all the schedule properties are zeroyiti lands and they were granted zeroyiti pattas by the erstwhile Zamindar of Pithapuram to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property till they were forcibly evicted by the defendants in the month of June, 1976. The plaintiffs also specifically pleaded that in or about the year 1960, there was a survey and settlement conducted by the Government and in the said survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were granted conditional pattas for the said land and due to some mistake that was crept into the Government records, subsequently the said lands were noted as Ava tank poramboke without notice to the plaintiffs or others and without any enquiry. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the suit land is not a poramboke or Government land or the land intended for the public purpose. Admittedly, none of the plaintiffs questioned the said alleged change of classification of zeroyiti land to Ava tank poramboke before the appropriate authorities. The 1st defendant / Government is claiming that the suit schedule land is a Government poramboke land. Even according to the own case of the plaintiffs, in the survey and settlement operations in the year 1960, the schedule property is notified as Ava tank poramboke land. Even assume if the said statement of the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct, they have to challenge the said change of classification as Ava tank poramboke before appropriate authority. Even assume if the said statement of the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct, they have to challenge the said change of classification before the appropriate authority. But, they have not challenged the same from 1960 onwards before the appropriate authorities.