The Government cannot dispossess a person of land in respect of which they consider he is, prima facie, entitled to a ryotwari patta if such person is a land-holder pending decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal if any to it as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta.

K. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent viz: the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the district Collector, Srikakulam from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of certain lands bearing patta No. 126, 125, 566, 365, 414, 172, 104, 560, 217 and 187 situated in Tallasamudram village in Narasannapeta taluk of Srikakulam district.

( 2 ) TALLASAMUDRAM is a zamin village which was notified on 1-1-1951 under section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter called the Act) and taken over by the Government. The petitioner says that he raised casurina tope in the aforesaid lands in an extent of Ac. 80. 00 and the said trees were existing on the notified date ; that he continued in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said lands by rearing the tope as well as by cultivating the lands with dry crops, Meanwhile there was a suit between the proprietor including the petitioner and the alleged lessee of the said lands and and the Government was also a party to the said suit. The suit was O. S. No. 2/50 on the file of the District Court, Srikakulam. The petitioner appears to have claimed occupancy rights in the said lands. But this point was left open in the said suit. The matter was carried in appeal to the High Court in A. S. No. 241/1960 and in the appeal also, the claim to ryotwari patta was left open. It appears that the revenue authorities attached the land in the year 1962 towards alleged arrears of land revenue and the petitioner filed objections on 24-10-1963 and 12-5-1954 and also paid the amounts under protest. On 0-1-1967 the Firka Revenue Inspector, published a notice stating that the casurina tope in the aforesaid lands situate in Tallasumadram village was taken over by the Government after releasing it from the auction and that it was put under the custody of the village munsif of Tallasamudram. The petitioner says that an enquiry under section 15 is pending with regard to the grant of a ryotwari patta and that the enquiry is posted to 30-8-67 and that the Government had no right to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid lands even before the enquiry under section 15 of the Act, is oven He relies upon a proviso to section 3 (d) in support of his contention The petitioner thereupon approached the district Collector for cancellation of the said notice threatening to interfere with the sight of his possession. The District Collector on 6-5-1967 informed the petitioner by his proceedings L. Dis. Nos, 4230/67 dated 6-5-1967 to the effect that "the lease expired by 3-9-1956 that according to the judgment of the High Court, the government was the proper authority which had got right to exercise the power under section 20 (1) read with its second proviso and considered the question of dispossession of the petitioner, that the Government took possession of the land that the Assistant settlement Office -, Anakapalli had taken up the issue whether any one of the parties would be entitled to a ryotwari patta for the land and that the result of the enquiry should be awaited". The petitioner says that he was still in actual physical possession of the lands even after the publication of the aforesaid notice and that the notice published on 20-1-1967 by the Firka Revenue Inspector and the order of the collector passed on 6-5-1967 were not proper or valid and consequently he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his possession of the lands in question: the Government has filed a counter stating that the landa were non-ryoti, that the lease had; expired by 1956, that under proviso to section 20 (1) of the Act, the Government could enter upon the lands and consequently they had taken over possession of the lands and that writ petition itself cannot be entertained as possession was already taken over by the Government.

( 3 ) THE proviso to sec. 3 (d) of the Act enacts that the Government "shall not dispossess any person of any la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document