Judgment A. Shankar Narayana, J. 1. Respondent No. 6 - Kesavlal in L.A.O.P. No. 10 of 2000 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, "the Act") aggrieved by the order, dated 08-12-2005, answering the reference, under Section 30 of the Act, in favour of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam - 7th respondent therein (2nd respondent herein) referred by the Land Acquisition Officer - cum - Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. By the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Gazette on 23-12-1996, the Government through the Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupati, acquired an extent of 562.5 square feet of land in T.S. No. 1394/1 of Tirupati Village and Urban Mandal for the purpose of widening the Prakasham road from Old Municipal Office to Town Club Junction in accordance with the Master Plan of Tirupati Urban Development Authority. When notices were issued, respondents 1 to 5 in the O.P. on one side and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (Devasthanam) on the other put up their rival claims in respect of an extent of 268 square feet of land, out of the total extent of 562.5 square feet of land. Likewise, the 6th respondent, who is the appellant herein, laid claim in respect of remaining 294.5 square feet of land and simultaneously Devasthanam also put up its claim over that extent. The Land Acquisition Officer having observed that the parties other than Devasthanam were maintaining their respective possession and enjoyment by making super-structures having encroached the land and claimed compensation even for land, referred the matter to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, by depositing an amount of Rs. 2,43,437/- into Court. 3. Before the reference Court, respondents 1 to 5 therein, who laid claim in respect of 268 square feet of land, since did not appear, were set ex parte. Concerning the other extent of 294.5 square feet of land, the appellant, contested the claim by filing counter. He has set up title by purchase of the said extent from one Ranganatham, whose wife acquired title from her father and non-agricultural tax being collected from him by the Revenue Department besides payment of tax to the Town Municipality, Tirupati, since mutation was also effected in his name. He has set up title by purchase of the said extent from one Ranganatham, whose wife acquired title from her father and non-agricultural tax being collected from him by the Revenue Department besides payment of tax to the Town Municipality, Tirupati, since mutation was also effected in his name. Thus, he contended that the Devasthanam has no right, title, interest or possession over that extent and himself and his predecessors-in-title even perfected their right by continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than hundred years, and, thereby, sought to release the amount in his favour. 4. Respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 7 in the O.P.) - Devasthanam filed statement of claim contending ownership over the said extent and even paying cist to the revenue authorities and sought to pay the compensation to it. 5. To substantiate their respective claims, the appellant examined himself as R.W. 1 besides examining one of the attestors to the sale deed under which he purchased the extent as R.W. 2 and one of the vendors as R.W. 3 and exhibited Exs. B-1 to B-12, the description of which is mentioned in the appendix of evidence. On behalf of Devasthanam, its Senior Assistant G. Geethakumar was examined as R.W. 4 and through him Exs. B-13 to B-16 were exhibited. 6. Reference Court formulated the relevant point for consideration touching the title over the extent acquired. Concerning the extent of 268 square feet, since respondents 1 to 5 therein did not respond and remained ex parte, held that the compensation has to be granted in favour of Devasthanam since the evidence of R.W. 4, supported by Exs. B-13 to B-16, stood unchallenged and un-rebutted. 7. Concerning the other extent of 294.5 square feet over which the appellant laid claim, though, observed that execution of Ex. B-7 was not disputed by the Devasthanam, still, Devasthanam assailed its validity. In that view of the matter, having appreciated the evidence on record let in by the appellant and Devasthanam, recorded finding that since the appellant failed to file any document to show that the title over the said extent was conveyed in favour of the wife of R.W. 3, and observing that it accounts for a clear clog in respect of his title, discarded Exs. B-2 to B-5 mortgage deeds, said to have executed by one Munilakshmamma on the ground that they were not at all referred to in the counter filed by the appellant and the same accounts for bereft of relevant plea. The other documentary evidence through Exs. B-6 and B-8 to B-12 were also discarded on the ground that they do not improve the case of the appellant. Basing on the evidence let in by Devasthanam, while rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Devasthanam being a mighty institution created Exs. B-13 to B-16 documents in collusion with the revenue authorities, the reference Court observing that not only Exs. B-13 to B-16 would substantiate the case of Devasthanam, but also the probabilities, favour the case of Devastaham, held that the Devasthanam is entitled to compensation even for the remaining extent of 294.5 square feet of land which was the subject matter of Award No. 1/2000, dated 13-03-2000. 8. It is the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in the instant appeal contending in the grounds of appeal that the reference Court did not frame proper points for determination touching the plea of adverse possession put-forth by the appellant which was to the knowledge of Devasthanam and the order and decree passed by the reference Court is based on assumptions and presumptions without proper appreciation of evidence, both, oral and documentary, let in by the appellant. It is also contended that the reference Court despite observing that due execution of Ex. B-7 is not disputed by Devasthanam, still, making observation to the effect that "but the validity of the same is assailed", ought not to have rejected his claim. It is also contended that Smt. Munilakshmamma was the mother of Smt. K. Muni Rajamma, the wife of R.W. 3, who is vendor of the appellant, and the very execution of mortgage deeds under Exs. B-2 to B-5 by Smt. Munilakshmamma proves her title and right over the extent in dispute got by the wife of R.W. 3, still, making observation that there was a clear clog in respect of the title of the appellant is improper. Thus, raising grounds touching various observations made in the order under challenge, finally sought to set aside the order and decree and grant the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer concerning the extent of 294.5 square feet of land. 9. Thus, raising grounds touching various observations made in the order under challenge, finally sought to set aside the order and decree and grant the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer concerning the extent of 294.5 square feet of land. 9. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent - Devasthanam, and perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the extent of 294.5 square feet, which is the subject matter herein, was purchased by the appellant under Ex. B-7 registered sale deed, dated 25-09-1991, from its lawful owner K.G. Ranganatham and his son and daughters, and a valid title was conveyed under Ex. B-7 registered sale deed in favour of the appellant by his vendors and the vendors of the appellant succeeded to the said property from Smt. Munirajamma, wife of the 1st vendor, who inherited the same from her predecessors-in-title. It is also his submission that even by continuous and uninterrupted possession by the appellant and his predecessors-in-title, they perfected their right by adverse possession and Devasthanam without any valid right or title over the property, laid claim over the land on which the building has been existing and the documentary evidence through Exs. B-1 to B-6 would prove right and title of predecessors of the vendors of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Officer instead of granting compensation for the land to the appellant, referred the matter under Section 30of the Act to the Civil Court. It is also his submission that the reference Court, somehow, misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence let in by the appellant through Exs. B-1 to B-12 and despite Exs. B-1 and B-7, reflecting the valid title being conveyed, still, rejected the claim of the appellant even side-lining the plea of adverse possession claimed by the appellant. It is, therefore, his submission to set aside the order under challenge and to grant the compensation to the appellant. 11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent - Devasthanam submits that the subject land belongs to Devasthanam and the entire land in Survey No. 1394 is inam land held by Devasthanam and the endorsement made to that effect in Ex. B-13 in the year 1961 itself, would clinch the issue supported by the recitals in Exs. 11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent - Devasthanam submits that the subject land belongs to Devasthanam and the entire land in Survey No. 1394 is inam land held by Devasthanam and the endorsement made to that effect in Ex. B-13 in the year 1961 itself, would clinch the issue supported by the recitals in Exs. B-14 to B-16 showing Devasthanam as owner of the entire land covered by Survey No. 1394/1 of Tirupati village. It is also his submission that the appellant has not let in satisfactory evidence to prove the title over the disputed extent and the relationship of Rudraiah, vendee under Ex. B-1, and Munilakshmamma, mortgagor under Exs. B-2 to B-5. Likewise, the relationship between Munilakshmamma and Munirajamma is not established. Even the right of the vendor under Ex. B-1 as to his source of title is not forthcoming. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is successful in proving the right or title over the disputed extent. 12. Perused the order under challenge and the oral and documentary evidence let in by the rival parties. 13. It is not in dispute that the compensation for super-structure existing on the land in dispute was granted in favour of the appellant. Thus, the dispute relates to entitlement to compensation awarded concerning the extent of 294.5 square feet of land. 14. The appellant examined himself as R.W. 1, one of the attestors to Ex. B-7 as R.W. 2 and one of the vendors K.G. Ranganatham as R.W. 3, and marked Exs. B-1 to B-12 to substantiate his case. He asserts that he acquired title under Ex. B-7 from R.W. 3 and his children. Except getting mentioned in his affidavit-in-chief examination that his vendors and their predecessors-in-title, acquired title over the disputed extent under Ex. B-1, dated 01-08-1891 for consideration, the relevant details as to how the title was acquired by the wife of R.W. 3, is not forthcoming. When he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for Devasthanam, he answers to certain questions that Ex. B-1 does not disclose sub-division number, that he did not file any revenue records showing the extent and ownership of R.W. 3, that he has not filed any rejoinder to the counter filed by Devasthanam, that Exs. B-2 to B-5 also do not reveal sub-division No. 1, that Ex. B-6 encumbrance certificate also does not disclose sub-division No. 1, that Ex. B-2 to B-5 also do not reveal sub-division No. 1, that Ex. B-6 encumbrance certificate also does not disclose sub-division No. 1, that Ex. B-8 relates to the year 1994 and that he did not file cist receipts prior to 2000. Except proving custody of Ex. B-1, nothing is forthcoming to show the title acquired by the wife of R.W. 3. The evidence of R.W. 2, who is an attestor to Ex. B-7 would not improve the case of the appellant. When examined the evidence of R.W. 3, in the affidavit in his chief-examination filed, he states that his wife's mother purchased the disputed property on 01-08-1891 for consideration and subsequently they succeeded to the same and himself and his children were in possession of the same and sold it to the appellant on 25-09-1991 under Ex. B-7. In his cross-examination, when he was questioned, he answers that parents of his wife gave the subject property to his wife and after her death, the property devolved on him and that he paid tax for the property. Thus, even R.W. 3's evidence is not specific to show the source of title over the disputed land for the reason that the source of title of Rudraiah, vendee under Ex. B-1, is not forthcoming. When Ex. B-13 reflects that the entire Survey No. 1394 is not an inam land, the burden to prove title over that property is onerous on the appellant. That has been the reason, the reference Court has made a specific observation that there was a clear clog on the title set up by him and further observation that the validity of Ex. B-7 is not proved by him. It is no doubt true, the reference Court made an observation that Devasthanam did not dispute execution of Ex. B-7, but that cannot be a ground to infer that there was valid conveyance of title over the disputed property thereunder. 15. B-7 is not proved by him. It is no doubt true, the reference Court made an observation that Devasthanam did not dispute execution of Ex. B-7, but that cannot be a ground to infer that there was valid conveyance of title over the disputed property thereunder. 15. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent - Devasthanam is, that when once the property is determined as Inam of the Institution under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short "Act 1956"), and ryotwari patta is granted under Section 7 thereof by the Tahsildar by resorting to the procedure enlaid in both the provisions, it is, now, not open for the appellant to dispute the same and claim title over the disputed extent. It is also his submission that as per Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "Act 1987"), it is always open for the party concerned to evict the encroachers of land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment, and, in the instant case, since the entry recorded in Ex. B-13 has not been challenged at all by the appellant, his claim cannot be sustained. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends, the very fact that no proceedings were resorted to by invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the Act 1987, is sufficient enough to infer that the institution never disputed the right or interest of the appellant over the disputed land. 17. It is not in dispute that Ex. B-13, certified copy of the extract of Inam 'B' Register, reflects that the extent in Survey No. 1394 is recorded in the name of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). There is specific endorsement made under vertical column No. 14 that mutation is effected as per the Act 1956, through proceedings in Ref. No. 3701/61, dated 19-04-1961, recording the extent in the said survey number and extents in other survey numbers in the name of TTD. 18. In the present context, provisions of Sub-Sections (6) and (7) of Section 3, Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 and Section 7 of the Act 1956, and Section 83 of the Act 1987 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would become relevant. 19. 18. In the present context, provisions of Sub-Sections (6) and (7) of Section 3, Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 and Section 7 of the Act 1956, and Section 83 of the Act 1987 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would become relevant. 19. Section 3 of the Act 1956, deals with determination of inam lands. It envisages that as soon as may be, after the commencement of the Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application enquire and determine, whether a particular land is an inam land, and whether such an inam land is ryotwari, zamindari or inam village and whether such inam land is held by any institution. Sub-Section (3) provides for tendering decision by the Tahsildar in writing. Sub-Section (4) provides for preferring appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty (60) days from the date of communication of the decision of the Tahsildar by the aggrieved party. Sub-Section (5) envisages that the decision of the Revenue Court under Sub-Section (4) and in case, no appeal is preferred, the decision of the Tahsildar under Sub-Section (3) shall be final. Sub-Section (6) provides for publication of the decision rendered by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court in the District Gazette. Sub-Section (7) states that the decision of the Revenue Court and the decision of the Tahsildar shall be binding on all persons and institutions claiming an interest in any such inam land, notwithstanding that such persons or institutions have not filed any application or statement or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court, as the case may be. 20. Section 4 of the Act 1956, deals with conversion of inam lands into ryotwari lands. Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) thereof envisages that if inam land is held by an institution on the date of commencement of the Act, such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. 21. Section 7 of the Act 1956 deals with grant of ryotwari pattas. Sub-Section (3) thereof envisages that the decision of the Revenue Court under Sub-Section (2) thereof, and, where no appeal is preferred, the decision of the Tahsildar under Sub-Section (1), in granting ryotwari patta shall be final. 21. Section 7 of the Act 1956 deals with grant of ryotwari pattas. Sub-Section (3) thereof envisages that the decision of the Revenue Court under Sub-Section (2) thereof, and, where no appeal is preferred, the decision of the Tahsildar under Sub-Section (1), in granting ryotwari patta shall be final. It is, thus, clear that the pre-existing right or interest held by the Inamdar or the institution stands extinguished by operation of the provisions of the Act 1956 and conferment of ryotwari patta under Section 7 read with Section 3 thereof becomes conclusive between the parties. 22. In this context, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpagiri Math v. Kopparaju Veerabhadra Rao, 1996(3) ALT 23 (D.N.) : 1996(5) Supreme 281 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an alike situation, while dealing with the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of Act 1956, held in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, as under: "4. ......Under the A.P. Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, Act 37/56, after the Act had come into force, the pre-existing right, title and interest stood extinguished and the new rights were sought to be conferred under Section 3 read with Section 7 thereof either in a suo motu enquiry under Section 3 or on an application under Section 7. A new grant of ryotwari patta is to be made by the Tehsildar by way of an order after enquiry to the extent of entitlement as per law. It would be subject to an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer which becomes final. In Peddinti Venkata Murail Ranganatha Deslka Iyengar & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Anr. [JT 1996 (1) SC 234], a Bench of two Judges of this Court (in which one of us K Ramaswamy J. was a member) had considered the scope and operation of the Act. While considering the constitutional validity of Section 75 of the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act 1987, the Court held that a person or institution or the tenant in occupation is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the land. The institution is entitled to the extent of 2/3 and the tenant or person is entitled to ryotwari patta to an extent of 1/3 share. The grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7 becomes conclusive overriding the effect given by Section 15 over any other law. The institution is entitled to the extent of 2/3 and the tenant or person is entitled to ryotwari patta to an extent of 1/3 share. The grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7 becomes conclusive overriding the effect given by Section 15 over any other law. It would therefore be clear that after the Inam stood abolished the pre-existing rights extinguished and the obligation to render service burdened with the land was relieved. The holder of the land became entitled to free hold ryotwari patta. Thus the pre-existing right, title and interest stood extinguished. 5. It would thus be clear that by statutory operation of the provisions of the Act the pre-existing right or interest held by the inamdar or the institution stood extinguished and conferment of ryotwari patta under Section 7 read with Section 3 becomes conclusive between the parties. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to declare title to the Inam land by necessary implication, stood excluded. Under those circumstances, the respondent cannot claim any exclusive title to the property as an owner and lay claim for declaration of title on that basis. Unfortunately, the High Court blissfully became ignorant to the statutory operation of law and the legal evidence and the effect and proceeded on the premise that the grant has been lost and the respondent has become owner of the property by prescription. Though the plea of adverse possession was raised, no issue has been framed in that behalf nor any finding was recorded by the trial Court or the appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that the respondent has established his title to the property." 23. It is, therefore, clear that the claim of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the entries in the original Inam 'B' Register recording the extent in Survey No. 1394 in the name of TTD, as reflected by Ex. B-13. It is no doubt true, the learned counsel for the appellant submits the very fact that Devasthanam did not attempt to evict the appellant by recourse to provisions of Section 83 of the Act 1987, is sufficient enough to award compensation in favour of the appellant, but, that argument, in our considered view, is not convincing at all. B-13. It is no doubt true, the learned counsel for the appellant submits the very fact that Devasthanam did not attempt to evict the appellant by recourse to provisions of Section 83 of the Act 1987, is sufficient enough to award compensation in favour of the appellant, but, that argument, in our considered view, is not convincing at all. When, once the disputed land, which constitutes part of Survey No. 1394 is determined as inam land of the institution and ryotwari patta was issued under Section 7 of the Act 1956 by the competent authority, neither the plea of adverse possession set up by the appellant, which, of course, is not maintainable in the presence of Ex. B-7, nor the title claimed thereunder would entitle him for compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer concerning the land value in the absence of valid title to convey. Mere payment of tax subsequent to the date of Ex. B-7 and conversion of electricity connection in his name would not entitle him for compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view, the finding recorded by the reference Court that there is a clear clog in respect of the title of the appellant and that Devasthanam is entitled to the compensation for the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, is well reasoned. Thus, we find no perversity in its reasoning, and, therefore, confirming the order and decree under challenge, we dismiss the instant appeal. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal stand disposed of.