This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a second appeal against patta grants. The court rejected arguments on limitation of appeal and duration of possession. It affirmed the appellate authorities' findings on possession and dismissed the petition.
Disposal of writ petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22881 of 2004
Between:
1. M. Papaiah Chowdary,
S/o. Late M. Raja Rao, R/o. 10-4-55, Mamillagudem,
Khammam, Khammam Dist.
2. M. Vamshi Mohan,
S/o. M. Raja Rao, R/o. 10-4-55, Mamillagudem,
Khammam, Khammam Dist.
....PETITIONERS
AND
1. The Commissioner (ROM),
O/o. Chief Commissioner of
Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad.
2. The Director of Settlements,
Govt of A.P., Hyderabad.
3. The Settlement Officer,
Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
4. The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
5. Smt. Ludramma, D/o. Late Rajamma, R/o. Tatagudi Centre, Bhadrachalam,
Bhadrachalam Mdl, Khammam District.
...RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by M.Papaiah Chowdary and M.Vamshi Mohan with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records in proceedings L1/414/99 of the Commissioner (ROM), office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-first respondent and quash the order dated 07.09.2004 passed therein.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are:-
Mallavarapu Jojaiah and Dasari Rajamma filed an application for grant of patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (for short ‘the Regulation 2/1970’). M.Jojaiah claimed an extent of 1-20 hectares comprising S.No.2/2 whereas D.Rajamma claimed an extent of 2-48 hectares comprising S.No.2/3. Initially, their claims came to be negatived by the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam-third respondent. Thereupon, they filed an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad-second respondent and the same came to be remanded to the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam. The order dated 31.12.1984 passed by the Director of Settlements in A.P.No.307/79 reads as follows.
“ I have perused the documents discussed and gone through the order of the Settlement Officer. It looks as though that the appellant’s lands are situated in the adjoining village Purushothapatnam but surveyed as part of Gundala village, that in the former village they are shown in Government lands held on patta by the appellant but in the ex-estate of Gundala village the very lands are recorded otherwise is banjar. This
conclusion is all the more necessary when the appellant states that he is in possession of the lands only at once place and he rightly feels that they are in the village Purushothapatnam and he is the owner that they are not in Gundala village for which an enquiry was held by the Settlement Officer inspite of this having been raised the issue has not been examined well by the Settlement Officer for a proper finding.
I am satisfied that there is a strong case for remanding the matter once again to the Settlement Officer inspect the lands and also give a finding whether or not the same block of land is shown in the village limits of Gundala and Purushothapatnam and if no enquiry de novo into the claims of the appellant for a proper finding in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed and remanded.”
On remand the Settlement Officer allowed the claim of M.Jojaiah and granted ryotwari patta in respect of both the R.S. numbers i.e., 2/2 and 2/3. Dasari Rajamma died and her legal representatives filed an appeal under Section 9(3) of the Regulation 2/1970 against the order of the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam passed in Case No.6026 of 1978 dated 11.4.1985. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement allowed the appeal and granted ryotwari patta in favour of K.Lurdhamma in respect of R.S.No.2/3 admeasuring 2-48 hectares. The writ petitioners being legal representatives of M.Jojaiah challenged the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad-second respondent by filing second appeal before the Commissioner (ROM), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad- first respondent and the same ended in dismissal. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Fifth respondent filed counter-affidavit.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order dated 07.09.2004 of the Commissioner (ROM), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad-first respondent on two grounds. Firstly, the appeal filed by 5th respondent before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement is barred by limitation. Secondly, 5th respondent failed to prove her
possession over the land for a period of 8 years for entitlement of ryotwari patta as provided under Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970.
6. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement entertained the appeal after condoning the delay. This can be noticed from the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
It is explicit from the above order that the appellate authority after condoning the delay entertained the appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance.
7. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Dasari Rajamma was not in possession of land for a period of 8 years continuously prior to 01.07.1971 and thus, she is not entitled for ryotwari patta.
Both the appellate authorities viz., second appellate authority-Commissioner (ROM)-first respondent and first appellate authority-Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement-second respondent, taking into account the material brought on record, rejected the said contention by giving cogent and convincing reasons. Therefore, I do not see any reason to differ with the findings recorded by both the appellate authorities.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date: 07th December 2005.
BSB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by the 5th respondent is barred by limitation.
Whether the 5th respondent proved continuous possession of the land for eight years to claim ryotwari patta under Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970.
Whether the findings of the appellate authorities regarding possession and entitlement are correct.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Papaiah Chowdary
M. Vamshi Mohan
The Commissioner (ROM), O/o. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P.
The Director of Settlements, Govt of A.P.
The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
