Point of law: Classification of the land is also an issue which can be dealt with by the survey officer under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897.

ORDER :

The 1st petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 225 Sq.Yds of land in Sy.No.24/3D2, Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatanam District. The 2nd petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 418 Sq.Yds of land in the same survey number. Both the petitioners trace their ownership and possession through various registered deeds of sale, to a registered deed of sale in the year 1947. It is the case of the petitioners that the land purchased by them had been recognised as “Zeroyati” land in the survey, which was got conducted in the year 1902, by the then guardian of the Vizianagaram Estate, Mr.H.F.W.Gillman. The register prepared at that time, which is more popularly known as the Gillman register, under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897 would show that Sy.No.24 consisting of Ac.52.56 cents was classified as “Zeroyati” land which is “Banjara”.

2. The petitioners have approached this court, being aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam, which is said to be attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above lands of the petitioners, claiming that the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam had been granted Ryotwari pattas in respect of this land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 [for short “the Inam Abolition Act”]. It is the case of the petitioners that their land in Sy.No.24/3D2 is not covered by any Ryotwari patta and the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam cannot make any claim over the said land. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent itself had issued a public notification vide Rc.No.C1/8279/96, dated 19.12.1996 setting out the land covered by the Ryotwari pattas given in favour of the 2nd respondent and the land in Sy.No.24/3D2 is not shown in the said notification. The petitioners would also contend that even if there is such a Ryotwari patta, the same would be invalid, as a patta under the Inam Abolition Act could have been granted only in relation to “Inam” land, and “Zeroyati” land can never be treated as Inam land falling within the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act.

3. The 2nd respondent after notice has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the case of the 2nd respondent is that the lands in Cheemalapally Village falls within the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act and the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam, Visakapatnam) by an order dated 02.01.1978 had declared that the lands covered under title deed No.1191, given in favour of the 2nd respondent- Devasthanam are Inam lands in an Inam village. On this basis, the M.R.O, Pendurthy, had granted Ryotwari pattas under Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act, by proceedings dated 06.09.1996 to an extent of Ac.383.70 cents in favour of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam.

4. The 2nd respondent contends that the total extent of land in Sy.No.24 is Ac.52.56 cents out of which the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam was given a Ryotwari patta in relation to Ac.7.75 cents of land in Sy.No.24/1 and the Ryotwari patta for the remaining extent of Ac.44.81 cents is yet to be given. The 2nd respondent also took the stand that the Petitioners, except showing certain deeds of sale, have not demonstrated their right and title over the property, and in any event, the petitioners could only claim such right and title by virtue of an occupancy certificate or pattas given under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, as this land falls within the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act.

5. Another significant contention raised by the 2nd respondent is that the entire land in Sy.No.24 is divided into two parts i.e., Sy.Nos.24/1 and 24/2 because of which, the M.R.O, Pendurthy had granted Ryotwari patta only in relation to Sy.No.24/1 admeasuring Ac.7.75 cents and the enquiry relating to the remaining land is still pending.

6. The petitioners rely upon the ent