JUDGMENT

Dt. 07.04.2022 (Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

1) Aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.2168 of

2017 by the learned single Judge, the State preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, raising several contentions.

2) The parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the learned single Judge for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3) The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition declaring the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 issued by respondent No.2 in respect of the petitioners lands in R.S.No.17 and corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1, 2, 3 an extent of Ac.04.50 cents, Sy.No.17 and 18 part corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1, 2, 3 and 24 part an extent of Ac.02.50 cents in Rs.No.17 and 18 part corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1, 2, 3, 24 part Ac.2.42 cents and R.S.No.17 and 18 part corresponding to old Sy.No.23/1, 2, 3, 24 part Ac.2.42 cents admeasuring total extent of Ac.11.84 cents in Edumetla Marripalem village, Parawada Mandal of Visakhapatnam District as illegal, against law and violation of Article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and set aside the same.

4) The chequered history of proceedings before the different authorities, though necessary for better appreciation, the same will be referred at appropriate stage after little narration of the facts of the petitioners case.

5) The specific contention of the petitioners is that the subject land is a

introduced in E. Marripalem village with effect from 01.07.1959. The ancestors of the petitioners were continuously cultivating the land. The names of ancestors were recorded in Adangal of the village. The Tahasildar, Parawada Mandal, in the counter filed in the proceedings before the authorities, admitted that the ancestors of the petitioners were in long standing possession and enjoyment of the subject land for more than 50 years prior to 01.07.1945. The lands are zeroithi lands. The petitioners? ancestors paid cist to the Government. (Copies of Land Revenue receipts for Fasalies 1404, 1406 and 1414 along with certified copies and the relevant extract from Gillman Register were filed before the learned single Judge)

6) As there is no limitation to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 11(a)

of the Estates Abolition Act and in the absence of rival claimants, the name of Dulla Yerra Sanyasi was recorded in pattadar column No.8 in Gillman Register of 1904, which is a settlement register. The said HFW Gillman, who is a special agent for Government of Madras, with the assistance of the Settlement Officer, after completion of survey operations, settled that, Dulla Yerra Sanyasi was in possession and enjoyment of the land in the year 1904 and was pattadar for old survey numbers 23/1,2,3 and also 24 part, which corresponds to new survey number 17 part and 18 part. Dulla Yerra Sanyasi is a ryot. He had both Kudivaram and Melvaram rights. In view of the explanation The purport of the explanation introduced in Section 3 by amending the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, with amendment in the year 1934, is to give occupancy rights to a person who was in occupation at least for 12 years where there was no other ryot having occupancy rights in the said land. Dulla Yerra Sanyasi, the common ancestor of the petitioners, continued his possession over the subject land till his death. Thereafter, his successors came into possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Even as per the counter of the Tahasildar, Parwada, filed before the primary authority, >Dulla family? was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for 50 years prior to 01.07.1945. Occupancy rights are heritable. His rights flowed to the present petitioners as they succeeded the right by way of succession under the Hindu Succession Act. When, in the year 1904, as per Gillman?s settlement register the subject land was shown as ryoti land and the petitioners? ancestor was a ryot, the recording as against the survey numbers as >gayalu? or AWD (Assessed Waste D