T. MEENA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 in o. S. No. 502 of 1989 on the file of the III Addl. Subordinate Judge s Court, Visakhapatnam wherein the learned Judge dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit. The respondents are the defendants.

( 3 ) THE case of the appellants are as follows: the plaint schedule property of 19 acres forms part of the land covered by Survey no. 30 in Vepagunta Village in Pendurthy mandal in erstwhile Visakhapatnam Taluk. Originally, the suit survey No. 30 is an extent of 42 acres 5 cents. The entire Vepagunta village was gifted to the Pagoda of Sri Sri Sri varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Varu of simhachalam and the authorities of the said devasthanam have granted an extent of ac. 21. 021/2 cents to one late Godaarthy narayana Acharyulu long time back out of the total extent of 42. 05 cents and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of 21. 021/2 cents.

( 4 ) AFTER retirement of Narayana Acharylu from service directed him to pay rent to the devasthanam by proceedings dated 11-2-1965 in the diagnostic register i. e. , at the rate of 0. 50 ps. per acre and the executive Officer of the Devasthanam confirmed the possession and occupation of narayana Acharyulu and directed him in the said proceedings to pay cist for the period of 10 yers prior to the proceedings i. e. , from 1964. The said Narayan Acharyulu raised a mango and other fruit bearing tope in the land and he alienated an extent of Ac. 16. 00 out of an extent of Ac. 21. 021/2 cents on the western most portion with definite boundaries to the first plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 20-2-1965 and he also sold another extent of Ac. 3. 00 on 10-1-1966 and he delivered the possession of the said extents under the above said two registered sale deeds to the first plaintiff. Ever since the first plaintiff and his family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of Ac. 19. 00 cents.

( 5 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that after purchase of the land, the first plaintiff applied to the Devasthanam for survey of the said land and paid the amount of Rs. 10/- on 8-2-1967 and the Executive Officer of the simhachalam Devasthanam issued proceedings dated 10-3-1967 directing the surveyor to survey the lands and show the same to the first plaintiff and accordingly the land was surveyed. The first plaintiff also paid cysts due to Devasthanam and subsequently to the Government. He also submitted a declaration under Section VI of central Act 33 of 1976 and the Special officer and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam issued proceedings in CC No. 4281 of 1976 dated 17-11-1977.

( 6 ) WHILE that being the case, in the month of June, 1988, the first plaintiff received a notice from the Mandal Revenue Officer, pandurthi stating that an application under sections 3,4,7 and 8 of the Inams Abolition act, 1956 was filed by Ayyala Somayajulu venkataramana (first defendant) and others and directed the first plaintiff to appear before him. Thereupon, the first plaintiff without prejudice to his rights as to the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Inams Abolition Act filed objection statement giving all the true facts. Later, the mandal Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated 29-9-1989 in C. No. 1/88 issued proceedings stating that a Ryotwari Patta should be issued in respect of 2/3rd share to the defendants 1 to 3. It is the case of the first plaintiff that the Manaj Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the said proceedings and he cannot go into the question of title and he did not follow the provisions of AP Inam Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. In fact, there was no enquiry under Section 3 of the said Inams abolition Act nor there was notification. The suit land is a Inam Dry Land situated in a village granted as a gift

Click Here to Read the rest of this document