Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
Maddala Sree Ramakrishna – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Appeals Officer of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 554 of 2004
Decided On : 06-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Ashwani Kumar.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Estates Land Act, 1908 – Section 11, 12, 13, 14, 64-C – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Appeal against Respondent no.6 to10 who are legal representatives of Naidu dismissed for default vide order and Respondent No. 5 being only legal representative of deceased Naidu is contesting appeal, writ appeal cannot decided in absence of Respondent Nos. 6 to 10, who are parties throughout and more particularly, before learned Single Judge –Held, No patta granted in case to any other person and no evidence to show that it is Government land even in respect of Government lands, whoever in continuous possession from 1940 onwards, they entitled for grant of ryotwari patta, there is no dispute that cultivators entitled for pattedari rights, I am of opinion that the suit filed by plaintiffs is maintainable – it is left open to petitioner to challenge title irrespective of patta granted by authorities concerned, Court while exercising power under Article 226 by learned Single Judge or in appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent cannot decide such issue – Writ appeal is dismissed. (Para 33, 34, 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
Appeal against Respondent no.6 to10 who are legal representatives of Naidu dismissed for default vide order and Respondent No. 5 being only legal representative of deceased Naidu is contesting appeal, writ appeal cannot decided in absence of Respondent Nos. 6 to 10, who are parties throughout and more particularly, before learned Single Judge.
Findings of the court:
No patta granted in case to any other person and no evidence to show that it is Government land even in respect of Government lands, whoever in continuous possession from 1940 onwards, they entitled for grant of ryotwari patta, there is no dispute that cultivators entitled for pattedari rights, I am of opinion that the suit filed by plaintiffs is maintainable – it is left open to petitioner to challenge title irrespective of patta granted by authorities concerned, Court while exercising power under Article 226 by learned Single Judge or in appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent cannot decide such issue.
Result: Writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P. No. 26476 of 2003 preferred this writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, challenging the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
2. The parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as petitioner and respondents to avoid confusion.
3. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 26476 of 2003 Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and validity of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.07.2003 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, which was received by him on 27.10.2003 on various grounds.
4. It is alleged that, father of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 20.86 cents in Patta No. 7 (New Patta No. 404) in R.S. No. 86 and 87 situate in T. Sirasapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, in a public, auction conducted by the Chemudu Estate on 08.11.1944 through Ex. P-3. In addition to the aforesaid land, he also purchased an extent of Ac. 2-00 in the same Patta number by Registered Sale Deed dated 11.01.1956. At the time of purchase, the land was un-surveyed, Memo Rc. No. 2708/54 dated 17.07.1954 issued by the Tahsildar Manager, Anakapalle stating that T. Sirasapalli Village was un-surveyed land. The petitioner's father made an application for survey of the land. As per Memo in Rc. No. 2102154-B dated 12.06.1954 issued by the Tahsildar Manager, Anakapalle; petitioner's father paid charges for the survey. The land was surveyed in the year 1959 and found to contain an extent of Ac. 29.06 Cts. within the boundaries given by the Diwan of the Estate to petitioner's father and it is marked as 7 bits. The name of the petitioner's father was mutated in the revenue records, RSR, including an extent of 16.32 Acres in R.S. No. 87 bearing Patta No. 7 (New Patta No. 404) marked as Ex. P-2. Consequent upon abolition of estates, the petitioner's father was granted patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalle, for an extent of Ac. 16.32 cents in R.S. No. 87 bearing Patta No. 7 (New Patta No. 404) marked as Ex. P-2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's father preferred revision before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, who by order dated 31.10.1961 granted patta to petitioner's father, for further extent of Ac. 12-14 cents in S. No. 86 in the same Patta No. 7, which is marked as Ex. P-1. Thus, patta was granted to the petitioner's father for the total extent of Ac. 28.46 cents in 1961 which had been in the enjoyment of petitioner's family and they have been paying taxes and also that the name of the petitioner's father was mutated in the revenue records, marked as Ex. P-5 before the primary authority.
5. While the matter stood thus, one Dadi Thati Naidu S/o Ramaiah, father of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, after lapse of 20 years filed a Revision before the Director of Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad claiming an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents in S. No. 86 Part and an extent of Ac. 2-00 in S. No. 87/1 and 2. Though the said claim was made after lapse of 20 years without any basis, more particularly, based on two fictitious sale deeds dated 04.10.1933 and 18.06.1934, the vendor lost his title, as they were rent defaulters to the Estate authorities. Therefore, the very execution of the two sale deeds is by playing fraud on the estate authorities knowing fully well that the land would be auctioned in the Court by the Chemudu Estate for recovery of rent. The estate authorities filed a suit, O.S. No. 879 of 1939 against the vendors for arrears of rent and the land, was auctioned in E.P. No. 324 of 1942 by the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the sale deeds are invalid and they will not confer any title on the said Dadi Thati Naidu. Moreover, Dadi Thati Naidu should have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 145 of Estate Lands Act, but without following the said procedure, claimed the relief, thereby he is disentitled to claim Patta for an extent of Ac. 1-80 ce
