Payment of cist is a sufficient proof of occupation of submerged lands for purposes of right to patta under sec. 11(b) of the Estates Abolition Act.

JUDGMENT :

KUMARAYYA, J.:— This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 19-9-1962 made on revision against the order of the Director of Settlements, dated 26-5-1962, passed in revision Codfirming the order of the Settlement Officer, Masulipatam, refusing grant of patta, for the submerged lands in Prakkilanka in West Godavari district bearing S. Nos. 4/8-A, 7/15-A, 13-A and 14-A, to the petitioner as the trans-feree of Kanumuri Venkatrao.

2. The circumstances under which this petition has been filed may be briefly stated. One Kanumuri Venkatrao was the pattadar of lands bearing patta Nos. 4/8-A, 7/15-A, 13-A and 14A, measuring ac 159-42 cents in Prakkilanka in West Godavari district. The petitioner is the alienee of these lands under a sale deed dated 6-3-1959 executed by the said pattadar owner. These lands, as a result of floods, were for years without number under river waters and were thus incapable of actual possession and enjoyment by the pattadar. However, the pattadar was paying cists thereof regularly with the hope of future enjoyment on their reappearance The Government took over the estate in which these lands are situate on 7-9-1950 under the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The petetioner's predecessor-in Interest, who was in possession from before 1939, was never a defaulter by that date or even afterwards. There were several-lands in both the district of Godavari which were likewise submerged under the waters. The burden of assessment in relation to these lands weighed heavy upon the ryots. Their entreaties to reduce the burden did not go in vain. The lanka ryots of the East Godavari District appealed for levy of a token or nominal assessment of one rupee per acre. After careful consideration, the Government decided, as per G.O. Ms. No. 128 Revenue dated 14-11-1956 to charge only 5% assesment on the eroded private lands and grant remission in respect of the differerance between the settlement rates and the assessment (bus ordered. All mis-apprehension at to the true extent of this concession was ramoved by issuing Government Memo. No. 7402/A-57, Revenue, dated 1-7-1957, which was to the effect that the concession embodied in G.O. Ms. No. 128 Revenue dated 14-12-1956, would be applicable having regard to the assessment as reduced under the Rent Reduction Act of 1947, which was being collected for the time being. Later, in another G.O. Ms. No. 370 dated March 3, 1964 the Government decided that assessment on eroded private lankas should be reduced to one quarter of normal assessment pending their reformation. There was yet some doubt in the minds of the concerned authorities as to whether these Government Orders could at all be applicable to lands other than those in the East Godavari district, as a result of which lanka land ryots in the West Godavari district were not dealt with in the same manner as those in the East Godavari district. The Government then by their Memo. No. 2447/60-2 dated 12-8-1960, directed that the lanka ryots of West Godavari also should pay only half the assessment with effect from fasli 1356. The petitioner claims that hit predecessor-in-interest had paid assessment regularly up to 1957 and that he paid thereafter full assessment, though under protest, for the years 1957 and 1958. Thereafter he made an application to the Collector, West Godavari, to collect for the subsequent years at half the assessment and adjust the excess paid in 1957 and 1958 towards the years 1959 and 1960 and stay the collection in the year 1959. The District Collector refused to stay the collection for the year 1959. The petitioner approached the Minister requesting intervention and issuance of a direction to the Collector to staty the collection. Before his case could be considered, the Collector, on 29-2-1960 sent a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 3,466-65 for faslis 1367 and 1368. The petitioner moved the Mnnister once again in continu