Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1334 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. CV Ramani

2024-09-20

HARINATH NUNEPALLY, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. Heard the Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants, and Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent herein sought issuance of a ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (herein referred to as "Estates Abolition Act"), in relation to Ac.8.52 cents of land in R.S.No.17 of Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This claim was made on the ground that the predecessors of the respondent had been in possession and enjoyment of the land from 1914 and as such, she would be entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. It was also the contention of the respondent that the aforesaid land of Ac.8.52 cents was converted into a private tank, called Venkappa tank, and the same had been constructed by her ancestors. The respondent also pointed out that the tank was wrongly noted as government poramboke tank during the re-survey operation and an application for change of classification of the land from government poramboke to zeroythi was filed. In consideration of this application, a memo No.41025/EA & AR/A1/2009, dated 06.07.2018, was issued by the government, declaring the tank to be a private tank belonging to the respondent and that it was not a government tank. The memo also stated that the respondent was entitled for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act. 3. It may also be noted that even prior to the above memo, the government had issued orders, dated 03.05.2013, and a further memo, dated 14.08.2015, permitting the change of classification of the land from tank to zeroythi and for implementation of the said orders. As the appellant authorities tried to re-open the issue, W.P.No.3292 of 2017 was filed by the respondent. This Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to complete the process of implementation of the government orders. The Writ Appeal, bearing W.A.No.548 of 2018, filed against such orders, was dismissed and contempt proceedings were initiated for implementation of the orders. The contempt proceedings resulted in a sentence of imprisonment to the Tahsildar of the Mandal. At that stage, the government issued a direction to approach the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari patta. The Writ Appeal, bearing W.A.No.548 of 2018, filed against such orders, was dismissed and contempt proceedings were initiated for implementation of the orders. The contempt proceedings resulted in a sentence of imprisonment to the Tahsildar of the Mandal. At that stage, the government issued a direction to approach the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari patta. This Court, while dismissing W.A.No.548 of 2018, had directed the Joint Collector to receive the application and to process it also. 4. Subsequently, an order dated 12.10.2018 was passed on the application of the respondent. In this order, it was held that the land is not a zeroythi land, but a tank filled with water and therefore no patta could be granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.42118 of 2018. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after noticing the law relating to this issue, had allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order, dated 12.10.2018, passed by the Joint Collector, with a direction to the Joint Collector to issue a ryotwari patta to the respondent, in terms of the memo, dated 06.07.2018. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the State and the official respondents, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present Writ Appeal. 6. The case of the appellants, in sum and substance, is that the land is covered by a water tank and in view of the definition of ryoti land, under Section 3(16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate Land Act, 1908 (herein referred to as "Estates Land Act"), the land in question is not a ryoti land for which a ryotwari patta can be given; Section 3 (b) of the Estates Abolition Act vests all tanks and irrigation works in the government and as such ryotwari patta to land vesting in the government cannot be given. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.7461 of 2009, dated 14.03.2019, had held that tanks and water bodies are inalienable and they have to be retained and restored and the records of the Settlement Officer shows that there was an ayacut under this tank, due to which the tank would have to be treated as a government tank which is vested with the government. 7. 7. The learned Government Pleader, while reiterating the above contentions, also relies upon the order of the Joint Collector, dated 12.10.2018, wherein the Joint Collector, on physical examination of the land, had held that the land is covered by water and as such, it would have to be treated as a public tank over which no ryotwari patta can be granted. 8. Section 3 (16) of the Estates Land Act had defined ryoti land to be land which does not include bed and bunds of tanks and of supply drainage, surplus or irrigation channels. In the present case, the land is said to be covered by a tank. Section 3 (d) of the Estates Abolition Act, also stipulates that tanks and irrigation works in any estate village would vest in the government directly. In view of these provisions, the grant of a ryotwari patta would not be permissible. 9. However, the provisions of Section 3 (4) of the Estates Abolition Act would also have to be looked into. This provision states that improvements made by the occupants of a land, including construction of tanks, etc. would not change the nature of the land and the said land would remain as zeroythi land. This principle was also accepted by the Division Bench in W.A.No.548 of 2018. 10. The issue of whether the tank is a private tank or a government tank is decided by the memo, dated 06.07.2018, issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the government wherein, the government had accepted that the tank in question was a private tank constructed as an improvement over the land and that the tank is not a government tank. 11. It may also be noticed that it was the Learned Advocate General, who had pointed out these facts, before the Division Bench in W.A.No.548 of 2018. In the face of the fact that it was the Learned Advocate General, who had conceded this fact and in the face of the fact that this memo has not been set aside either by government or by any other process known to law, it would have to be held that the tank in question is a private tank, which was in the nature of improvement of the land under Section 3 (4) of the Estates Abolition Act. The mere finding of the joint collector that the land is covered by water, in the absence of any other finding that the tank is a government tank, would not make a difference to the fact that the tank is a private tank, created as improvement of the land. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose on a question of protection of public and communal water bodies. In the present case, the tank is a private tank. 12. In the circumstances, the finding of the Learned Single Judge that the land remains as zeroythi land, over which the respondent is entitled to ryotwari patta, does not require any interference. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.