Petitioner challenged dispossession from land for which he held a final ryotwari patta. The court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioner without following due process of law while redistributing land to the poor.
Directions issued not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.694 of 2005
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac.2.61 cents (1.06 hectares) situated in Sy.No.44/2 of Indukurupeta village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, without notice and without passing any order, as illegal and arbitrary.
It is the case of the petitioner that the Settlement Officer, after conducting enquiry, by his order dated 07.12.1975 granted ryotwari patta in favour of his brothers and himself, under the provisions of A.P. (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.61 cents (1.06 hectares) situated in Sy.No.44/2 of Indukurupeta village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, as he was in possession of the said lands prior to 01.07.1945. Aggrieved thereby, the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampochodavaram and Special Deputy Tahsildar, Devipatnam, filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements with a delay of 12 years and the same was dismissed on 30.12.1991 and, therefore, the ryotwari patta issued by the Settlement Officer became final. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice and without passing any order, the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the subject land, for the purpose of distributing the said land to the landless poor, under the Scheme evolved by the Government in the year 2005. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleaders for Revenue and Social Welfare appearing for the respondents.
According to the petitioner, he was granted ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land, by the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry, vide his order dated 07.12.1975. A perusal of the said order reads as under:-
“The record of enquiry shows that the old Pattadar of the Scheduled lands is Sri Jyothula Chinnaiah, a non-tribal. A part of the patta lands were devolved on Sri Jyothula China Venkataratnam in partition. Now China Venkataratnam died 3 months back and his 4 sons, the petitioners have acquired the land by inheritance.
The record of enquiry shows that the schedule lands are in the occupation of the petitioners and that they were “Ryoti” lands granted by the landholder prior to 1.7.45. Therefore the claim would fall within the ambit of Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act. The schedule lands continue to be in the occupation of the petitioners till 1.7.71 i.e., the date on which Regulation 2/70 came into force.
In the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioners to Ryotwari patta for the schedule lands is allowed under Section 7(1) read with Section 9 of Regulation 2/70.”
From the above, it is clear that after conducting a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was granted ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land. Now, only for the purpose of implementation of the scheme introduced by the Government, whereby the Government lands are distributed to the landless poor, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law. No order as to costs.
_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 02.12.2010 v v
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents can lawfully dispossess petitioner from land granted ryotwari patta without prior notice or passing of any order.
Whether distributing subject land to landless poor under a 2005 Scheme overrides petitioner's established title.
Whether dispossession without due process of law violates constitutional rights.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyothula China Venkataratnam's 4 sons
Project Officer, ITDA, Rampochodavaram
Special Deputy Tahsildar, Devipatnam
C.V. Ramulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
