Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kum C v Ramani

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Sept 2024WA/229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State challenged a single judge's order directing grant of ryotwari patta over Ac.8.52 cents held to be a private tank built by the respondent's predecessors as an improvement on zeroythi land. The Division Bench upheld that the government memo of 06.07.2018 established it as a private tank and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent's entitlement to ryotwari patta per memo dated 06.07.2018 upheld; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Kum C v Ramani — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶2

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO N

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 229 OF 2023

¶10

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 26.08.2022 in W.P.No.42118 of 2018 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Spl. C.S and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat. Velagapudi. Guntur District.

¶12

The Spl.C.S and CCLA, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

The Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶18

AND

¶19

Kum. C. V. Ramani, D/o. Chitra Sartyanarayana Rao, Aged 67 years, R/o. Plot No.457, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dated: 26-08-2022 in W.P.No.42118/2018, pending finalization of the writ appeal.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to advance the hearing of the above writ appeal in WA No. 229/2023 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in view of the urgency mentioned above in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellants: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. V. S. MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

[3488]

¶27

‘f APHC010061432023

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶33

WRIT APPEAL NO: 229/2023

¶34

Between:

¶35

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

Kum C V Ramani

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶41

1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶43

1.G VS MEHAR KUMAR

¶44

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶45

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶46

Heard the Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants, and

¶47

Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶48

The respondent herein sought issuance of a ryotwari^pattaunder Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (herein referred^{toas“EstatesAbolition}

¶49

¶50

RRR, J&HN,J W.A.No.229 of 2023 ^

¶51

Act”), in relation to Ac.8.52 cents of land in R.S.No.17^{ofKrishnarayapuram} Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.^{Thisclaimwasmadeon} the ground that the predecessors of the respondent^{hadbeeninpossession} .and enjoyment of the land from 1914 and as such, she^{wouldbeentitledfor} grant of ryotwari patta. It was also the contention^ofthe respondent^thatthe aforesaid land of Ac.8.52 cents was converted into a private tank, called Venkappa tank, and the same had been constructed by^{herancestors.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^thetanktobea 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^{AbolitionAct.}

¶52

It may also be noted that even prior to the above memo, the government had issued orders, dated 03.05.2013, and^{afurthermemo,dated} 14.08.2015, permitting the change of classification^{ofthelandfromtank} to zeroythi and for implementation of the said orders. As the appellantauthorities 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

¶53

¶54

RRR, J&HN,J W.A.No.229 of2023

¶55

¶56

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. This Court, while dismissing W.A.No.548 of 2018, had directed the Joint’ Collector to receive the application and to process^italso.

¶57

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 JointCollector, with a direction to the Joint Collector to issue a ryotwari patta to the respondent, in terms of the memo, dated 06.07.2018.

¶58

Aggrieved by the said order, the State and the official respondents, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present Writ Appeal.

¶59

¶60

RRR, J&HN,j W.A.No.229 of 2023

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

RRR, J&HNJ W.A.No.229of2023

¶66

I \

¶67

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.

¶68

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^{BenchinW.A.No.548of} 2018.

¶69

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.

¶70

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

RRR, J&HN,J

W.A.No.229 of 2023 ^

nature of improvement of the land under Section 3 (4)^{oftheEstatesAbolition} 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.

¶75

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.

¶76

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand

¶77

closed.

¶78

Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶79

//TRUE COPY//

¶80

/?/ SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To,