Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 117 (AP)

State of AP v. P. Amrutha

2025-01-21

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. As all the two Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition relate to the same facts and the same subject matter, they are being disposed of, by way of a common order. 2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. S. Anvesha, appearing for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.455 of 2019 and 154 of 2020, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.7194 of 2024 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.154 of 2020 and 455 of 2019 and for respondents in W.P.No.7194 of 2024. 3. The 1 st respondent is said to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.279/1, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.288/1, Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.292/1, Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.296/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.304/1, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.305/1, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.307/4, and Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.309/1, aggregating to Acs.1.54 cents. This land was originally the property of Sri Hathiramji Mutt. This Mutt is said to have granted a permanent patta in favour of the vendor of the 1 st respondent, on 25.03.1939. Subsequently, the vendor of the 1 st respondent sought ryotwari patta, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri issued proceedings in I.E.No.303/77, dated 20.12.1980, granting ryotwari patta to the vendor of the 1 st respondent for the extent of Ac.1.54 cents and another extent of Ac.0.16 cents. After the grant of the said ryotwari patta, the vendor of the 1 st respondent sold it to the 1 st respondent under a registered deed of sale, dated19.12.1981, registered as Document No.7376/1981. 4. The 1 st respondent sought to execute a deed of settlement, in favour of her son, on 01.09.2017 and approached the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, for a market value certificate for the purpose of paying stamp duty on the document. However, the Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement, on 01.09.2017 itself, that the said land is classified as „Government land? and no document can be presented for registration purpose. On verification, the 1 st respondent came to know that the property is not included in the list of prohibited properties, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. However, the Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement, on 01.09.2017 itself, that the said land is classified as „Government land? and no document can be presented for registration purpose. On verification, the 1 st respondent came to know that the property is not included in the list of prohibited properties, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the settlement deed, the 1 st respondent had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.30085 of 2017. This Writ Petition was dismissed, on 08.09.2017. However, liberty was given to 1 st respondent to submit an application to the District Collector for allowing the 1 st respondent to execute necessary settlement deed. The 1 st respondent, on the strength of the order of the High Court, dated 08.09.2007, had filed an application, on 23.09.2017, seeking a no objection certificate. As no orders were passed on this application, the 1 st respondent approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh again, by way of W.P.No.40979 of 2017, for a direction to the authorities to dispose the application of the 1 st respondent and for a direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive, process and register the gift settlement deed. 5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, proceedings were issued by the District Collector, on 02.03.2018 rejecting the request of the 1 st respondent. The prayer in the Writ Petition was amended to include a challenge to the order of rejection and the matter was taken up for consideration by a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court. 6. The contention of the revenue authorities, before the learned Single Judge, was that the ryotwari patta, issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, could not have been given and all such ryotwari pattas had already been cancelled by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records. A learned Single Judge after verifying the endorsement and proceedings of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, placed before him, had held that the orders of cancellation do not relate to the present case and the said order of cancellation would not have any effect on the right and title of the 1 st respondent. 7. A learned Single Judge after verifying the endorsement and proceedings of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, placed before him, had held that the orders of cancellation do not relate to the present case and the said order of cancellation would not have any effect on the right and title of the 1 st respondent. 7. The District Collector also took the defense that the land which is sought to be registered, was within “Kaluva” land and no ryotwari patta can be issued, in respect of such land. The learned Single Judge after considering this contention, rejected it on the ground that the ryotwari patta granted to the vendor of the 1 st respondent, by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri had not been challenged and is till subsisting. The learned Single Judge was of the view that, as long as the ryotwari patta remains in force, there can be no ground on which the request of the petitioner can be rejected. On the basis of these findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition with costs and a direction to the Sub-Registrar to register the gift settlement deed, executed by the 1 st respondent, in favour of her son. Aggrieved by this order, dated 31.12.2018, of the learned Single Judge, the present W.A.No.154 of 2020 was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the District Collector and other revenue authorities. W.A.No.455 of 2019 came to be filed by the Sub-Registrar against whom directions had been issued. 8. W.P.No.7194 of 2024 came to be filed by persons claiming to be purchasers of the land which had belonged to the 1 st respondent in the Writ Appeal. 9. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the land in question is actually “kaluvaporamboke” consisting of a water channel between two tanks. He would submit that no patta could be granted in relation to the said water channel and blockage of the said water channel, under the guise of the ryotwari patta, would lead to ecological difficulties in the area. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the officer who had issued the ryotwari pattas had manipulated various records and had issued fake pattas to people, who were not entitled to such pattas. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the officer who had issued the ryotwari pattas had manipulated various records and had issued fake pattas to people, who were not entitled to such pattas. The learned Government Pleader who would contend that, it is on that account that, the Commissioner, Land Administration had set aside similar orders passed by the said officer. The learned Government Pleader would contend that a similar situation arises in the present case and the ryotawaripatta, said to have been granted by the said officer, cannot be accepted to be genuine or correct. The learned Government Pleader has taken this Court through the fair adangals of Tiruchanuru Village and more specifically the entries relating to the aforesaid survey numbers. The said adangal shows that the land in survey numbers in question to be categorized as “Kaluvaporamboke” and “Government Land”. He would submit that in such circumstances, no ryotwari patta can be granted for these lands as no ryotwari patta can be granted in relation to “Kaluvaporamboke” land. 10. Sri P. Veera Reedy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. S. Anvesha and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar who is appearing for the subsequent purchasers of land have both vehemently contended that the land in question is not “kaluvaporamboke” land and in any event, there is no existing water channel in the said area. It is submitted by them, that the revenue authorities, by raising the bogey of a water body are seeking to take away the vested rights of the 1 st respondent in the Writ Appeals and the petitioners in the Writ Petition who are seeking to claim through her. 11. Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act reads as follows: [2A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of all communal lands, porambokes etc., in inamlands - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances] 12. This provision prohibits grant of ryotwari patta in communal land, which would include “Kaluvaporamboke” land. 13. The case of the revenue authorities is that the land in question is a water body which amounts to communal lands. This provision prohibits grant of ryotwari patta in communal land, which would include “Kaluvaporamboke” land. 13. The case of the revenue authorities is that the land in question is a water body which amounts to communal lands. Sri P.Veera Reddy as well as Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar would contend that there is no water body or water channel in the area and in any event the ryotwari patta given in favour of the vendor of the 1 st respondent, in the Writ Appeals, has not been set aside till date. Further, the learned Single Judge had specifically observed that the contentions raised by the revenue authorities cannot be looked into while the ryotwari patta continues to remain in force. 14. While, no ryotwari patta could have been granted, in communal lands, the question of whether such lands are communal lands and whether there is any water body or a water channel in the said land is a question of fact which cannot be ascertained by this Court in writ proceedings. However, such an issue can be considered by the revenue authorities after a physical inspection of the said land. 15. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition are disposed of with a direction to the revenue authorities to conduct a survey and enquiry, for ascertaining the nature of the land, both in the revenue records as well as on a physical inspection of the land. Needless to say, this inspection and survey is to be conducted after due notice is given to the 1 st respondent in the Writ Appeals, as well as the petitioners in the Writ Petition, to set forth their case. Upon such verification being conducted, the revenue authorities will take a decision as to whether subsequent transfers can be permitted or not. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.