Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate land classification disputes under the Estate Abolition Act despite administrative orders, emphasizing the necessity for factual determination on ryoti land status.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 8 of 1979 dated 6-2-1980 on the file of the District Court, at Visakhapatnam.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that the suit schedule land is not a communal poromboke but a ryoti land belonging to the plaintiff and consequently sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant / Government from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by the plaintiff, for recovery of Rs. 76,608/- being the penalty and paid interest as per memo, for subsequent interest, for costs and such other reliefs which the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule land is situated in Vada Cheepurpally village, Anakepalli taluk, Visakhapatnam District, which forms part of Cheepurpally Estate. The estate holder granted patta No. 98 in favour of one R. Gajapathi Rao and he was leasing out the properties to the tenants for the purpose of cultivation and also excavation of lime shells and was paying assessment thereon to the landholder. That Gajapathi Rao seems to have leased out 350 acres of land under registered kadapa on 7-11-1927 (Ext. A3) to one Hanumahtha Rao Naidu. While things stood thus, on 29-11-1948 Mr. Gajapathi Rao sold the entire land to his daughter by name Mrs. B. V. S. Narayan Rao, covered by patta No. 98 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under registered sale deed. The case of the alienees is that she is getting the land cultivated by giving on lease under registered lease deed. We need not go into those details. The estate was notified on 1-10-1951 and taken over by the Government on 10-5-52. Before the estate was notified, no survey seems to have been taken place in the estate. The lessee as well as the alienee Mrs. BVS Narayana Rao applied for ryotwari patta under S.11 - A of the Estates Abolition Act (for short Estate Act) for the land under their possession on 28-4-1954. The Assistant Settlement Officer, after conducting enquiry granted patta for an extent of 350 acres to her on the basis of the lease deed and the sale deed in favour of alienee, though the Tahsildar / Manager appointed under the Act stated that the extent of lands will be around 700 to 800 acres. The patta was granted on 27-11-1954. Subsequently the plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac. 807-00 of ryothi land under a registered sale deed dt. 1-7-57 from Smt. B. V. S. Narayana Rao. From the record it is seen that Survey was conducted for the first time in the year 1957 under S.21 of the Estate Abolition Act read with the provisions of Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 . After preliminary survey was conducted, the survey party served a notice under S.9(2) of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 , stated that the land covered by paimash No. 396/1 to 396/2 is covered by patta No. 98 to the extent of 1400 acres. Subsequently, in the resurvey, they have shown the land as 1380 acres and the same was communicated to the plaintiff. Some time thereafter, i.e. on 5-11-1958, rough patta was issued to the plaintiff stating that the Survey No. 461 on actual measurement was only 504 acres in area and the plaintiff did not chose to canvass the correctness of the patta given by the Assistant Settlement Officer for 504 acres of land. In 1962 when the Hindustan Mineral Products Company trie