AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) BY consent of the parties, the Writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage and disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) THE Writ Appeal is directed against an order dated 26th June 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in w. P. No. 11369 of 2002.

( 3 ) THE Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the a. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (the act) pursuant to the orders passed by the commissioner of Survey, Settlements and land Records, Hyderabad dated 9-11-1990 in respect of Ac. 4. 14 cents of dry land in survey No. 38 (1) of Kallur village kuraichedu Mandal, Prakasam District and seeking to dispossess the petitioner and to assign the land to third parties as illegal, arbitrary unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as violative of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the first respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Section ll{a) of the Act and not to assign the land in question to third parties.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition itself is based on mere apprehension that the land in question, title of which has not yet been established, is likely to be assigned to third parties. The learned judge, therefore, did not entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same as premature. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.

( 5 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is in two parts. The first part relates to issuance of a Mandamus declaring the action of the Joint Collector, Prakasam district in not disposing of the application filed by the appellant-petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta under Section ll (a) of the Act pursuant to the orders passed by the commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad in case no. P2/2069/89, dated 9-11-1990 in respect of Ac. 4. 14 cents of dry land in Survey no. 38910 of Kallur village.

( 6 ) THE second limb of the prayer is not to dispossess the appellant petitioner and to declare the action of the second respondent in seeking to assign the lands in question to third parties as illegal and arbitrary.

( 7 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the title to the land in question has yet to be established. However, the petitioner appellant has made an application under Section 11 (a) of the Act for grant of ryotwari patta in his favour pursuant to the orders passed by the Commissioner of survey, Settlements and Land Records, hyderabad. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment in issuing a direction to the joint Collector, Prakasam District to take up the application filed by the Appellant- petitioner under Section 11 (a) of the Act for grant of ryotwari patta and dispose of the same within three months from this date.

( 8 ) THIS apart, a Full Bench of this Court in the case reported in C. Muthayya v. G. Gopalakrishnayya observed as follows:"in regard to ryoti lands in an estate, no right, title or interest of a ryot stands transferred and vest in the government. The relationship of the ryot is extinguished. The relationship of the ryot as a pattadar under Sec. 11 is established with the Government. The person, i. e. , the ryot who prima facie is entitled to patta cannot be dispossessed and since no right of his has been acquired by the Government he is not paid any compensation. He gets patta in pursuance of the realisation of the object of the Act, that is to say, introduction of a ryotwari settlement. The Act does not allow the government to acquire the ryoti lands and then allow it to grant the same to or assign the land thus acquired to anyone the Government chooses. Insofar as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document