Manam Yanadaiah and Others vs Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Govt. of A.P. and Others

T.N.C. Ranga Rajan, J.—Thf v. ese three writ petitions are directed against the Order dated 28-9-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad.

The matter relates to certain lands at Somasila village. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Nellore, passed an order on 22-11-1976 u/s 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ''the Act'') holding that the lands were held by the institution being Sri Someswara Swamy Temple, Somasila, and not by any individual. The consequence of this determination was that no tenant was entitled to a separate ryotwari patta. But, if, however, there were tenants in the lands, their occupancy rights were protected u/s 8 of the Act. Therefore, when the institution filed an application for ryotwari patta u/s 7 of the Act, the Special Deputy Tahsildar passed an order on 14-4-1977 granting ryotwari patta to the institution. Simultaneously, he made a list of the tenants, who were entitled to occupancy rights in the land by which ryotwari patta was given to the Temple. Against this order, a revision was filed by the Temple taking the objection that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the permanent occupancy rights of the tenants and his order shall be confined to the ryotwari patta to the Temple. By the impugned order, the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records accepted this contention and stated that the Act and the Rules do not provide for recording the rights of the tenants in respect of inam lands held by the institution and, therefore, the incorporation of the name of the enjoyer in the Annexure to Form-VIII was uncalled for. He accordingly set aside the portion of the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar recording permanent occupancy rights of the petitioners.

Learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the rights of the tenants were protected u/s 8 of the Act and such rights have to be determined by the appropriate authority, who is the Tahsildar and if no such determination is made. The petitioners will be without any remedy.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that u/s 7 of the Act, it is only the institution which was entitled to the ryotwari patta and, therefore, the Special Deputy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to decide anything other than the grant of ryotwari patta to the institution.

I have perused the Act and the Rules and I find that there is no specific Section or Rule for determining the occupancy rights protected u/s 8 of the Act. As pointed-out by the Commissioner, Survey, settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, even Form-VIII which records the ryotwari patta does not mention anything about the occupancy rights of the tenants. This form relates to the ryotwari patta to be given to the individuals and there is no separate form for the issue of ryotwari patta to institutions. There seems to be a lacuna with reference to the determination of the rights of the tenants where ryotwari patta has been given to the institution, but, such rights are clearly protected u/s 8 of the Act. In law, there cannot be any right without an appropriate remedy and if no specific remedy is provided under the Act, we have to ascertain the nature of such a remedy by necessary implication in the other provisions determining the rights of the inamdar. Since Section 7 of the Act provides for determination of the persons entitled to ryotwari patta and in the case where ryotwari patta is given to an individual, the tenants are given 1/3 share, it must be taken by necessary implication that where a ryotwari patta is given to the institution, the occupancy rights of the tenants must also be recorded in that ryotwari patta. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, was not right in holding that the Special Deputy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to record the occupancy rights of the petitioners while issuing ryotwari patta u/s 7 of the Act to the institution. However, the other contention of the institution that the determination of such occupancy rights was not done correctly and that certain trespassers, who are not actually cultivating the land, were given such occupancy rights, is a matter for consideration. Moreover, if the tenants have not paid the rent, they can also be proceeded with u/s 9 of the Act.

In the circumstances, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the revision petition to the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, who shall decide the question whether the petitioners are entitled to have their occupancy rights recorded on merits, after giving notice to both sides and also giving them adequate opportunity of being heard. Since the matter has been pending long time and certain lands have been acquired and the original petition for compensation is also pending adjudication since 1979, the Commissioner shall dispose of the revision petition within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.