Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 1137
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Mantena Ramanamma - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Surrey, Settlement and Land Records - Respondent
Decided On : 12-13-99
Headnote:
Provisions of A. P. land Revenue Act, 1374 - Section 11 - Section 67 - Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1958 - Section 49 - Limitation act - Section 17 - Writ petitions have a chequered career spreading over nearly three decades - matter arises under provisions of A. P. Estates Act - Government is competent to grant - Power to grant such pattas was delegated to Board of Revenue. board granted Ryotwari patta to over an extent of ac. 18-25 cents situated - An extent of ac. 18-00 situated in T. S. was granted to one - These parties were granted by Board of Revenue under b. P. R. T. - These lands were purchased by petitioner Smt. in good faith and for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed - Apart from lands purchased, petitioner was also granted Ryotwari patta by Board in B. P. R. T over an extent of Ac. 74-15 cents situated in S. No. 113 and 106/part of village - All aforesaid lands have been in possession and enjoyment of petitioner - While so, in respect of lands purchased by her it appears that tahsildar on basis of some reports from third parties including villagers, brought to notice of Board staring that lands were banjar, non-cultivable and non-ryoti and patta of such lands could have been granted - It was also brought out by Tahsildar that grantee and estate holder were closely related and therefore, assignment was not genuine - Board after considering complaint of Tahsildar negatived request to cancel pattas in their proceedings and matter was given a quietus at that stage itself - So far as patta granted to petitioner in w. P in her personal capacity in B. P. R. T to extent of ac. 74-15 cents of village is concerned, certain villagers filed revision petition before Government stating that patta was granted mala fide and it was bogus and nominal - It was also stated that land was non-ryoti land - Government considered revision of villagers with reference to records of Board of Revenue and passed order rejecting pleas of complainant and upheld grant – Held , Government considered above revision in consultation with board of Revenue and came to conclusion that there was nothing on record to doubt bona fides of transaction of order is extracted below Government have carefully examined above contention of revision petitioner in consultation with Board of Revenue and, with reference to connected records - In land-holder of caste assigned an extent of Ac. 9-00 in s. No, 140 and another extent of ac. 67-13 in S. Nos. 149 to 153 in village district - Estate was takenover by government - Land-holder granted patta No. 85 for Ac. 67-13 with an assessment of rs. 74-77 and patta No. 86 for Ac. 9-05 with an assessment of Rs. 10. 06 on payment of nazarana at 15 times of rent - Asst. Settlement Officer, has reported that land is cultivated and therefore ryoti. After death of original assignee, his legal heirs sold lands in question for valuable consideration through a registered sale deed - Lands are reported to be under occupation of alinee ever since - Patta granted by landholder and correspondence in estate records relating to this assignment clearly establish that normal procedure in vogue in estate for grants of patta had been followed - Government, therefore, consider that there is nothing on record to doubt bona fides of transaction - According to decision mere non-payment of rent for non-cultivation of land does not affect status of a person as a ryoti if it is proved that he is liable to pay rent and entitled to cultivate land - Both Asst. Settlement Officer, who originally submitted proposals Assistant Settlement officer, who subsequently answered certain points raised by Board of revenue have reported that lands are ryoti and that it is established from records beyond doubt that original assignee was admitted into possession of these lands as a ryoti liable to pay rent and valid pattas were also granted to him by landholder - Assignees, therefore, entitled to cultivate land as a ryoti - Connected disposal of Board of revenue reveals that there is nothing irregular in confirming patta granted by land-holder as it was done after due and proper examination of case - Pattas were granted three years prior to taking over of estate and procedure is vogue in estate was followed in granting these pattas - Government, therefore, observe that assignment made by landholder cannot be said to be not bona fide and accordingly reject revision petition - Writ petitions are allowed
( 1 ) THE Supreme Court in Civil Appeal nos. 5197 of 1997 and 5198 of 1997 remanded the matter in WP. Nos. 14137 and 14138 of 1988 to examine on merit the questions, which were raised in the writ petitions. Since W. P. No. 12665 of 1997 is also connected with the aforesaid writ petitions, the same is also clubbed and the matters were heard together.
( 2 ) THE writ petitions have a chequered career spreading over nearly three decades. The matter arises under the provisions of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The government is competent to grant ryotwari pattas under Section 11 proviso of the Act. The power to grant such pattas was delegated to the Board of Revenue. The board granted Ryotwari patta to smt. T, Venkubayamma over an extent of ac. 18-25 cents situated in T. S. No. 1/1 block-1 of Allipuram Village. An extent of ac. 18-00 situated in T. S. No. 1/p, BIock-1 of allipuram village was granted to one i. V. Sivaramadas. These parties were granted by the Board of Revenue under b. P. R. T. NO. 4455/1960 dated 8-9-1960 to smt. T, Venkubayamma and Sivaramadas. These lands were purchased by the petitioner Smt. M. Ramanamma in good faith and for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 26-11-1960. Apart from the lands purchased, the petitioner was also granted Ryotwari patta by the Board in B. P. R. T. No. 208 of 1962 dated 12-1-1962 over an extent of Ac. 74-15 cents situated in S. No. 113 and 106/part of marripalem village. All the aforesaid lands have been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. While so, in respect of the lands purchased by her from smt. T. Venkubayamma and i. V. Sivaramadas, it appears that the tahsildar on the basis of some reports from third parties including villagers, brought to the notice of the Board staring that the lands were banjar, non-cultivable and non-ryoti and patta of such lands could have been granted under Section 11 proviso. It was also brought out by Tahsildar that the grantee and estate holder were closely related and therefore, the assignment was not genuine. The Board after considering the complaint of the Tahsildar negatived the request to cancel the pattas in their proceedings dated 3-6-1974 and the matter was given a quietus at that stage itself. So far as the patta granted to the petitioner in w. P. No. 14137 of 1988 in her personal capacity in B. P. R. T. No. 208 to the extent of ac. 74-15 cents of Marripalem village is concerned, certain villagers filed revision petition before the Government stating that the patta was granted mala fide and it was bogus and nominal. It was also stated that the land was non-ryoti land (banjara, non-cultivable etc. ). The Government considered the revision of the villagers with reference to the records of the Board of Revenue and passed orders dated 4-9-1962 rejecting the pleas of complainant and upheld the grant.
( 3 ) WHILE that was the situation, after a long lapse of time, the Tahsildar concerned again initiated proceedings for cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of Smt venkubayamma and Mr. I. V. Sivaramadas and the petitioners by filing review petitions before the Board.
( 4 ) THE Board of Revenue considered the matter and passed orders dated 4-7-1988 in proceedings No. P1/p4/1105/85 in respect of the lands of I. V. Sivaramadas and proceedings No. P1/f4/1107 dated 6-7-1988 upholding the grounds of review filed by the Tahsildar and-thereby cancelled the pattas granted in favour of those two persons. W. P. No. 14137 of 1988 was filed against the order passed in proceedings no. P1/p4/1105/85 relating to the lands of i. V. Sivaramadas while W. P. No. 14138 of 1988 was filed challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue in proceedings no. P1/p4/1107/85. However, as regards the Review Petition filed in respect of the lands for which the patta was granted to the petitioner herself, the matter was kept pending in File No. PI/1106/85 and the orders were pass
