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.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. Heard the Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants, and Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent herein sought issuance of a ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (herein referred to as "Estates Abolition Act"), in relation to Ac.8.52 cents of land in R.S.No.17 of Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This claim was made on the ground that the predecessors of the respondent had been in possession and enjoyment of the land from 1914 and as such, she would be entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. It was also the contention of the respondent that the aforesaid land of Ac.8.52 cents was converted into a private tank, called Venkappa tank, and the same had been constructed by her ancestors. The respondent also pointed out that the tank was wrongly noted as government poramboke tank during the re-survey operation and an application for change of classification of the land from government poramboke to zeroythi was filed. In consideration of this application, a memo No.41025/EA & AR/A1/2009, dated 06.07.2018, was issued by the government, declaring the tank to be a private tank belonging to the respondent and that it was not a government tank. The memo also stated that the respondent was entitled for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act.

3. It may also be noted that even prior to the above memo, the government had issued orders, dated 03.05.2013, and a further memo, dated 14.08.2015, permitting the change of classification of the land from tank to zeroythi and for implementation of the said orders. As the appellant authorities tried to re-open the issue, W.P.No.3292 of 2017 was filed by the respondent. This Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to complete the process of implementation of the government orders. The Writ Appeal, bearing W.A.No.548 of 2018, filed against such orders, was dismissed and contempt proceedings were initiated for implementation of the orders. The contempt proceedings resulted in a sentence of imprisonment to the Tahsildar of the Mandal. At that stage, the government issued a direction to approach the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari patta. This Court, while dismissing W.A.No.548 of 2018, had directed the Joint Collector to receive the application and to process it also.

4. Subsequently, an order dated 12.10.2018 was passed on the application of the respondent. In this order, it was held that the land is not a zeroythi land, but a tank filled with water and therefore no patta could be granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.42118 of 2018. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after noticing the law relating to this issue, had allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order, dated 12.10.2018, passed by the Joint Collector, with a direction to the Joint Collector to issue a ryotwari patta to the respondent, in terms of the memo, dated 06.07.2018.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the State and the official respondents, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present Writ Appeal.

6. The case of the appellants, in sum and substance, is that the land is covered by a water tank and in view of the definition of ryoti land, under Section 3(16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate Land Act, 1908 (herein referred to as "Estates Land Act"), the land in question is not a ryoti land for which a ryotwari patta can be given; Section 3 (b) of the Estates Abolition Act vests all tanks and irrigation works in the government and as such ryotwari patta to land vesting in the government cannot be given. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.7461 of 2009, dated 14.03.2019, had held that tanks and water bodies are inalienable and they have to be retained and restored an