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 and 16 did not apply to claims arising under the Estates Abolition Act, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding protection of water bodies were not applicable to the subject land.

JUDGMENT

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J. - This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 4/8/2021 in W.P.No.8883 of 2020.

2. Heard Sri B. Seshibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the Learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellants and Sri Ambati Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Erragunta and Karakambadi villages of Renigunta Mandal of Chittoor District were Inam Estates regulated by the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 and the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Estate Abolition Act).

4. The Vendor of the petitioners, numbering 16 persons, in W.P.No.8883 of 2020, had been granted a rough patta, by the settlement officer, in the proceedings instituted to grant a ryothwari patta, under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The title of the petitioners over the lands held by them in Sy.Nos.167 and 168 of Erragunta village and Sy.Nos.170, 341 and 342 of Karakambadi village, is traced to this rough patta given to their predecessor in title. Writ Petitioners 1 to 3 (in W.P.No.8883 of 2020) had purchased the lands, held by them, in the year 2003-2005 and subsequent mutation of the revenue records in their favour was also carried out and pattedar passbooks were issued to them. Petitioners 1 to 3, obtained No Objection certificate for conversion of their lands from agricultural purpose to non agricultural purpose from the Tahsildar Renigunta, under proceedings bearing No. B/799/2004, B/800/2004 and B/801/2004, dtd. 5/10/2004. Subsequently lay out permissions were given by the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA), on 20/9/2005, for making a lay out of the said land.

5. At that stage, basing on a newspaper report, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Renigunta to put the said lands in the prohibited list and to take possession of the said land. The petitioners moved the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.11327 of 2010 against this action and the said writ petition was allowed on 16/12/2010 with a direction to the Collector to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Joint Collector, acting as the Collector, passed an order on 19/12/2011 declaring that a rough patta does not confer any title and no claim of ownership can be made while the proceedings for grant of ryotwari patta are still pending. On this basis, the above No Objection Certificates and the pattedar pass books, issued in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 were cancelled under Sec. 9 and 12 of the ROR Act, 1971.

6. The petitioners 1 to 3 moved the Government against this order. The Government stayed the orders of the Joint Collector and advised the petitioners to move the Commissioner land appeals by way of an appeal/representation. An appeal bearing No. P1/1012/2006, was preferred against this order before the Commissioner of Appeals, who treated the appeal as an appeal under Sec. 7 ((THELAW)) of the Estate Abolition Act and dismissed the said appeal on 22/5/2013. The appellate order recorded that the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Adangal on the basis of the rough patta granted in the year 1963 and that the land was classified as wet land. However, the appellate authority took the view that a rough patta does not confer any rights and the land was shown as land which is liable for submersion due to which patta cannot be granted.

7. A Revision Petition was filed, against the order of dismissal of the appeal, to the Government, which was allowed on 25/4/2016, holding that there is a distinction between tank bed land and land which is liable for submergence and that a rough patta does give rights to the holder. The Collector sought a review of this order which was refused by the Government which directed implementation of the order of the Government passed in the revision petition. Due to the efforts of the petitioners,