Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
C. V. Ramani – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 42118 of 2018
Decided On : 26-08-2022
ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1948 - SECTION 11(A) - RYOTWARI PATTA - PRIVATE TANK - CLASSIFICATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - DELAY - CONCESSION BY LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought a declaration that the order passed by the 4th respondent under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, with respect to the petitioner's land in Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of the land, which included a private tank called Venkappa tank, used solely for irrigation purposes. Despite earlier orders and memos permitting the change of classification from Government Poramboke to zeroythi, the respondent authorities took a 'U' turn and wanted to reconsider the issue. The petitioner filed a writ petition and contempt proceedings were initiated due to non-compliance with the court's orders. The 1st respondent directed the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 for grant of ryotwari patta. The 4th respondent passed an impugned order holding that the land was not a zeroythi land and was a tank filled with water, citing the need to protect material resources.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without considering the earlier reports, memos, and orders on the subject, and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, thereby flouting the rules of natural justice. The court also noted that the Government had earlier concluded that the land was not a Government tank but a private tank belonging to the petitioner and that the petitioner was entitled to a ryotwari patta, as per the Memo dated 06.07.2018, which was considered by the Division Bench.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, was illegal and arbitrary due to the flouting of the rules of natural justice and lack of consideration of relevant documents and orders? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a ryotwari patta for the land in question, considering the earlier memos and orders issued by the Government and the Division Bench? 3. Whether the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 11(a) of the Act barred the petitioner's right to seek a ryotwari patta?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was passed without considering the earlier reports, memos, and orders on the subject, and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, thereby flouting the rules of natural justice. The court also noted that the Government had earlier concluded that the land was not a Government tank but a private tank belonging to the petitioner and that the petitioner was entitled to a ryotwari patta, as per the Memo dated 06.07.2018, which was considered by the Division Bench. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a ryotwari patta for the land in question, considering the earlier memos and orders issued by the Government and the Division Bench. The court found that the impugned order was contrary to the conclusions reached by the Government in the Memo dated 06.07.2018, which was brought to the notice of the court by the learned Advocate General himself. 3. The court held that the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 11(a) of the Act was not material in the present case, considering that the Government itself had withdrawn its earlier memos and that the petitioner was seeking to implement the Division Bench order rather than seeking a de novo enquiry.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the 4th respondent to issue a ryotwari patta to the petitioner in terms of the Memo dated 06.07.2018 and the order of the Division Bench.
JUDGMENT
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus and seeking a declaration that the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the 4th respondent under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 with respect to the petitioner's land in Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 6.
3. As per the submissions of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, the petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.8-52 cents in R.S. No. 17 of Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner's predecessors in interest were in possession and enjoyment of the land from 1914, in the pre-abolition period also. It is stated that a private tank called Venkappa tank was dug in the land. It is asserted that this tank is used only for the purpose of irrigation of the land measuring Ac.8-52 cents and not any another land. Since during the resurvey operation the tank was wrongly noted as Government Poramboke Tank petitioner made an application for change of classification of the land from Government Poramboke to zeroythi. Despite clear reports from the authorities that the tank had no ayacut or that it is in the list of tanks of that area no proper action was taken. Earlier also it is submitted that the 1st respondent issued orders dated 03.05.2013 permitting the change of classification from the tank to zeroythi. This was followed by further Memo dated 14.08.2015 by the 3rd respondent to implement the earlier orders. However, as per the learned senior counsel despite the verification the respondent authorities took a 'U' turn and again wanted to reconsider the issue. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 3192 of 2017 and this Court by its orders directed the respondents to complete the process of implementation of the Government Orders. Thereafter, due to failure to comply with this order a contempt has been initiated and ultimately the 6th respondent was also sentenced to imprisonment. A Writ Appeal was also filed in W.A. No. 548 of 2018. Contempt Appeal was also filed against the order in the contempt case. Thereafter, in this situation, the 1st respondent issued an order directing the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 for grant of ryotwari patta. This order was considered by the Division Bench of the Court which passed orders in W.A. No. 548 of 2018 directing the 4th respondent to receive the application and to process it. Learned counsel submits that by this time the Government was aware that the tank was purely a private tank and that the application before the 4th respondent was therefore virtually for the purpose of implementing the order and to grant ryotwari patta. However, contrary to the same and contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is submitted that the impugned order is passed on 12.10.2018 holding that the land is not a zeroythi land and is a tank filled with water. The impugned order stated that in view of the earlier directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to protect material resources, this change in the classification cannot be allowed. Learned senior counsel also states that the rules of natural justice were flouted when this impugned order is passed. He draws the attention of this Court to the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present the case and the impugned order was passed without even considering the issues raised in the earlier orders on the subject. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 16.07.2018 issued by the Special Chief Secretary, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the land an extent of Ac.8-52 cents is not a Government tank, but is a private land belonging to the applicant. He points out that the Special C
The court emphasized the importance of following the rules of natural justice, considering all relevant documents and orders, and providing an opportunity to the parties to present their case before ....
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
The court affirmed that a tank recognized as a private improvement entitles the occupant to a ryotwari patta, despite statutory definitions excluding such land from ryoti classification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed questions of fact relating to title and possession should be decided by the competent civil court, and the power of judicial review i....
Point of law : water bodies cannot be alienated even if they are dry and cultivation carried on dried bed of water bodies does not denude land of its character as water bodies.
The grant of a rough patta created rights in favor of the holder, entitling them to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattedar pass books. Board Standing Orders 15 a....
Point of Law : The Doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be gran....
Possession claims based on agreements are insufficient against government declarations of land as public property; title disputes must be resolved in civil court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
