The court held that petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to Ryotwari Patta and did not challenge the grant to Inamdars within the statutory period, leading to dismissal of their petitions.

ORDER :

K Manmadha Rao, J.

WP No.11174 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents No 1 to 4 in consider the representations of Writ Petitioners for grant of Ryotwari Patta under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act 1956 in respect of lands in SyNos 1 to 22 with sub divisions covered by T D Nos 647, 218 and 219 of NarayanapuramAgraharam Village erstwhile Cheepurupalle Taluk and presently in Etcherla Mandal of Srikakulam District since the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Inamdars Andhavarapu Govindarajlu and his family members 5th to 8th Respondents by the 4th Respondent in his proceedings Rc No 812/86A dated 10.12.991 EX P1 and grant of Ryotwari Patta to them under Section 7 of the Act in D.Dis.37/95/A dt 29.01.1995 Ex P2 without notice to ryots who are ancestors of petitioners eligible for grant of ryotwaripatta as illegal void in violation of principles of natural justice and absurd and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the physical possession of the petitioners in respect of lands covered by SyNos 1 to 22 with sub divisions covered by T D Nos.647, 218 and 219 of NarayanapuramAgraharam erstwhile Cheepunipalle Taluk and presently in Etcherla Mandal of SrikakulamDist and pass just and appropriate orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice…”

WP No.24994 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Official Respondents in granting permissions to the Unofficial Respondents to carry out quarry works in Survey No 12 of Narayanapuram Village Etcherla Mandal Srikakulam District as illegal arbitrary and in violation of law and against the Article 14 19 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc No 2399/Q/2021 dated 13.06.2022 and Rc No 2002/Q/2021 dated 02.07.2022 issued by the Official Respondents No 4 and 5 and pass…..”

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.11174 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, after Abolition of S.M. Puram Zamindari Estate as per Inams Abolition Act, the lands covered by T.D.Nos.647 admeasuring Ac.150-39 cts. (Ac.117- 50 cents un-assessed Hill and Forest as per Inam 'B' Register, T.D. 218 covering Ac.1-74 cts. and T.D.No.219 admeasuring Ac.6-76 cents of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and in Etcherla Mandal was notified as Inam lands in an Inam Village not held by any institution as per Srikakulam District Gazette published on 05-05-1972 and hence the provisions of Section 56 of Inams Abolition Act (for short “the Act”) are applicable to these lands. It is stated that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners are tenants in occupation of the lands of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and at present in Etcherla Mandal though held by 4^th Respondent in occupation of tenants as on the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act, but negatived the claim of the ancestors of writ petitioners to grant Ryotwari Patta to them falsely claimed that they failed to file any application for grant of the Patta before Revenue Court.

It is further stated that the application filed by the Andhavarapu Govindarajlu (one of Inamdars) for himself and on behalf of his sons, who are 5^th to 8^th Respondents, as manager of family falsely claiming that there are no tenants under them, the 4^th Respondent though held that there are tenants, but have not turned claiming Ryot