Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1072 (AP)

J. S. Ranga Nayakulu v. District Collector

2012-10-31

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment The petitioners claim rights over the land in Sy.Nos.3, 11, 13 and 14/P of Purushottapuram Agraharam, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Their grievance is that even while an enquiry under Section 7(1) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘ the Inams Act’) is pending, the respondents 1 to 3 are trying to disturb their possession and are taking steps to bring about a Ship Building Unit of the Indian Navy. The petitioners submit that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land, referred to above, and the application filed by them for grant of ryotwari patta is pending. The District Collector, the 1st respondent herein, initiated steps for alienation of the land in favour of the Indian Navy, in the year 2001. Petitioners they filed W.P.No.10938 of 2001. It is stated that in the course of hearing of the writ petition, it emerged that an enquiry under Section 7(1) of the Inams Act, on an appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, i.e., the 2nd respondent, is pending. Therefore, the petitioners wanted to withdraw the writ petition. Permission was accorded, leaving it open to them to pursue remedies. Status quo for a period of one month was directed to be maintained. The Appellate Authority was directed to complete the enquiry within that period, or to consider the feasibility of extending the status quo, beyond that date. The petitioners contend that the enquiry as contemplated under the Inams Act was not completed and the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 18-09-2010, directing the concerned authority to determine the respective rights in respect of the lands in question. Reference is made to the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 12-02-2001, directing the 1st respondent not to hand over the possession of the land. They submit that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18-09-2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, they filed appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, and that the hearing of the appeal is scheduled to take place shortly. They submit that recently a news item appeared in Telugu daily, to the effect that the possession of the land was handed over to the Indian Navy, and that the authorities have started visiting the land. With this background, the petitioners submit that the respondents cannot be permitted to dispossess them from the land. They submit that recently a news item appeared in Telugu daily, to the effect that the possession of the land was handed over to the Indian Navy, and that the authorities have started visiting the land. With this background, the petitioners submit that the respondents cannot be permitted to dispossess them from the land. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and respondent No.4, on the other hand. The Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal, 3rd respondent, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, narrating the brief history, pertaining to the land, the proceedings that ensued under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (for short ‘the Estates Act’).Briefly stated, his version is that, Purushothapuram Village comprised of two parts, viz., ‘Mokhasa’, which was endowed to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam and ‘Agraharam’, comprising of lands in Sy.Nos.1 to 14. It is stated that way back in the year 1960, it was decided that Purushothampuram Agraharam is neither a Khandriga, nor hamlet, and in that view of the matter, it is not within the purview of the Estates Act. It is further stated that after it became clear that the Agraharam is not an inam estate, proceedings were initiated under the Inams Act. Reference is made to an order published in the Visakhapatnam Extraordinary Gazette, dated 30-09-1962, under Section 3 of the Inams Act, indicating the classification of the land and other relevant particulars. The 3rd respondent further stated that out of the entire land in Sy.Nos.1 to 14 of Purushothampuram Agraharam, comprising of Sy.Nos.1 to 14, it is only the extent of 57 acres in other survey numbers, that is classified as dry or wet, and that the rest of land in Sy.Nos.1, 3 and 10 to 14 is classified as poramboke. According to him, the ryotwari patta under the Inams Act can be granted only in respect of the inam dry, or inam wet lands, and the question of granting any ryotwari patta in respect of the lands of inam poramboke, does not arise. It is stated that an extent of 101 acres handed over to the Indian Navy, the 4th respondent is part of poramboke of Purushothampuram Agraharam, and that the petitioners do not have any claim over that land. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, almost on the same lines. It is stated that an extent of 101 acres handed over to the Indian Navy, the 4th respondent is part of poramboke of Purushothampuram Agraharam, and that the petitioners do not have any claim over that land. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, almost on the same lines. It is stated that a project of national importance was taken up and that the petitioners do not have any claim over the land. According to them, the possession of the land was handed over way back in the year 1951, by the 1st respondent, with the permission of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The petitioners are claiming rights vis-à-vis the land on the strength of their alleged enjoyment over it. The issue pertaining to the classification and the nature of the lands in Purushothampuram Village has been the subject-matter of the verification under different enactments. Through a final notification in Form No. II under the Inams Act, published on 15-05-1957, in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of that Act, the nature and character of the lands in that village was determined. It was held that the lands in the Purushothampuram Agraharam are, a) inam lands, b) in a jamindari Village, and c) not held by any institution. It was only in the lands in Sy.Nos.1 to 14, that are within the Agraharam part of the Village, and the remaining are in the Mokhasa part. The Indian Navy requisitioned the Government of Andhra Pradesh to provide land for establishment of Ship Building Unit. Since the lands in Purushothampuram Agraharam were found to have vested in the State, the proposals were mooted to hand over an extent of 101 acres. It is true that in February, 2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the 1st respondent not to hand over the land until further orders, in view of various objections. However, in May, 2001, specific permission was accorded to the 1st respondent to hand over the land, and accordingly proceedings were issued on 02-05-2001, alienating the same. The petitioners filed W.P.No.10938 of 2001 before this Court, questioning the order dated 02-05-2001. However, in May, 2001, specific permission was accorded to the 1st respondent to hand over the land, and accordingly proceedings were issued on 02-05-2001, alienating the same. The petitioners filed W.P.No.10938 of 2001 before this Court, questioning the order dated 02-05-2001. However, it came to light that two sets of proceedings were pending: The first set was in pursuance of a notice issued by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Inams Act; not being aware of the earlier adjudication. The other set comprise of appeals preferred by some interested persons, feeling aggrieved by the denial of ryotwari patta, before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn, and it was left open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies. The 2nd respondent passed a detailed order on 18-09-2010. A perusal of the same discloses that out of 261 acres in Purushothampuram Agraharam, only 52 acres of land is dry and Ac.3.42 cents is wet, and that the remaining was classified as poramboke, tank or banjara. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is specifically pleaded that the claims for ryotwari patta under the Inams Act can be only in respect of land, classified as inam dry or inam wet, and that the question of granting any ryotwari patta in respect of poramboke land does not arise. The lands as regards which, the petitioners are claiming rights are classified as poramboke. It is not doubt true that the petitioners have availed the remedy of appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. However, till any orders are passed in their favour, they cannot claim rights over the land. As of now, the situation is that the lands that are handed over to the Indian Navy, the 4th respondent, are part of Poramboke and no patta can be granted in respect of that land. In the event of the claim of the petitioners being accepted and ryotwari pattas being granted, the respondents 1 to 3 would, naturally, be under obligation to pay compensation under the relevant provisions of law. The petitioners do not stand on a higher footing, than what they were, when W.P.No.10938 of 2001 was disposed of, particularly, after the appeal preferred by them was rejected. A project of national importance cannot be stalled under these circumstances. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners do not stand on a higher footing, than what they were, when W.P.No.10938 of 2001 was disposed of, particularly, after the appeal preferred by them was rejected. A project of national importance cannot be stalled under these circumstances. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in the event of the petitioners being granted ryotwari pattas, under the Inams Act, as regards the land on which, the 4th respondent is bringing about the project, they shall be entitled to be paid compensation under the relevant provisions of law. Before parting with the case, this Court observes that the Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal, who filed the counter-affidavit deserves to be complimented for the perfect presentation of the various proceedings, that ensued under the two enactments, which are known for their complexity. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.