Back
1985 Supreme(AP) 385
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, RAMA RAO
Yarramchetti Suryachandra Rao - Appellant
Versus
Anivella Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy - Respondent
Decided On : 10-03-85
A decision reached by the Settlement Officer under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, is final and cannot be challenged in any collateral or independent proceedings, including proceedings under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act.
Headnote:
LAND REFORM - ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 15, 56(1)(C) - APPLICATION FOR PATTAS - JURISDICTION OF SETTLEMENT OFFICER - RES JUDICATA - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WHETHER MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a parcel of land in Vallurupalli village, which was taken over under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act). Murthy applied for a patta under Section 15 of the Act, and after an enquiry, it was held that the land was private land. This decision was upheld in various appeals and writ petitions. Later, 35 ryots from Vallurupalli filed an application under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act for grant of patta in their favor. Murthy sought a Writ of Prohibition to interdict the enquiry and further proceedings, which was allowed by the learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the issue was concluded against the appellants since general notice was given to all concerned, objections were enquired, and a finding was recorded. This finding was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 399 of 1976. The Court also held that the question of jurisdiction was not at issue, as the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to inquire into the question raised under Section 15 of the Act. Once a decision was reached and became final, the comity of a decision required that it not be reopened again.
Issues: 1. Whether the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the question of who is a lawful ryot under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act for the purpose of granting ryotwari pattas under Section 11? 2. Whether the decision in Writ Appeal No. 399 of 1976, holding that the suit schedule land was private land, barred the subsequent application by the 35 ryots under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the question of who is a lawful ryot under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act for the purpose of granting ryotwari pattas under Section 11. However, this observation was made with reference to Section 11 or Section 15 of the Act, and did not apply to the instant case, where the application was made under Section 56(1)(c) after a final decision had been reached in Writ Appeal No. 399 of 1976. 2. The Court held that the decision in Writ Appeal No. 399 of 1976, holding that the suit schedule land was private land, barred the subsequent application by the 35 ryots under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act. The Court reasoned that the question of jurisdiction was not at issue, as the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to inquire into the question raised under Section 15 of the Act. Once a decision was reached and became final, the comity of a decision required that it not be reopened again.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the Writ of Prohibition issued by the learned single Judge was upheld.
Act Referred
( 2 ) THE instant proceedings have been launched by another set of 35 ryots who also are from Vallurupalli. They made the application under Section 56 (1) (c) of the Act for grant of patta in their favour. Many among the 35 ryots were not parties to earlier proceedings which terminated on December 7, 1977. Murthy in whose favour the earlier proceedings terminated in Writ Appeal no. 399 of 1976, sought for a Writ of prohibition to interdict the enquiry and further proceedings filed by the 35 ryots. A learned single Judge in the order under appeal allowed the Writ Petition. In that necessary details as to the proceedings after the village Vallurupalli was taken over on March 2, 1965 till the disposal of writ appeal 399 of 1976 are referred and the writ petition is ordered. Hence appeal by the ryots.
( 3 ) THE 35 ryots now seek patta in their application under section 56 (1) (c) of the Act The lerned single Judge held the lands were the subject matter of writ Appeal 399 of 1976. This Court held the lands were private lands and concluded saying that the present proceedings initialed by ryots are launched to circumvent the earlier orders holding that the lands are private lands. In the circumstances proceedings under section 11 or under section 56 (1) (c) of the Act are not maintainable.
( 4 ) BEFORE we advert to other contentions raised in this Writ Appeal. , we may, at this stage, mention in similar circumstances a like petition was held not maintainable in Writ Appeal 61 of 1972 on September 26 1972 by a division Bench of this court which is short noted at page 3 in M,venkataramana Reddy V. Estates Abolition tribunal (1) 1972 (2) A. L. T. 3 (S. N.) and held:-"one it is found that the decision of the Tribunal under Section 15 if final on the two matters on which the Settlement Officer is required to make enquiry and determine the same, then there will be no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that such a decision not only cannot be challenged in civil court but it cannot be attacked in any collateral or independent proceedings even under the act. . . . . if it is found that is a private land bringing the case within any one of the three said sections to grant patta of such a land. . . . . . The jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer as well as the tribunal thus embraces both the questions end makes the tribunal s decision therein final. . . . . It cannot be questioned therefore, even in a proceeding under section 56 (1) of the Act. "in the above case objectors laid similar claims as in the present procee
